Re: [alto] ALTO Draft ReCharter WG review

刘鹏 <liupengyjy@chinamobile.com> Sat, 27 February 2021 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <liupengyjy@chinamobile.com>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFA083A097B for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 18:23:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.536
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HDRS_MISSP=2.434, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id onVSF36b9fIn for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 18:23:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmccmta1.chinamobile.com (cmccmta1.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B60113A096C for <alto@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 18:23:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.11]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app04-12004 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee46039ad14275-4c74e; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 10:23:18 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee46039ad14275-4c74e
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from PENG (unknown[120.244.192.212]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr06-12006 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee66039ad12b27-20b37; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 10:23:17 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee66039ad12b27-20b37
MIME-Version: 1.0
x-PcFlag: 2c5b77ae-31f0-4afc-991d-9e2bbfcd3148_5_46659
X-Mailer: PC_RICHMAIL 2.8.5
Date: 27 Feb 2021 10:23:14 +0800
From: =?utf-8?B?5YiY6bmP?=<liupengyjy@chinamobile.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?SUVURiBBTFRP?=<alto@ietf.org>, =?utf-8?B?UWluIFd1?=<bill.wu@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <2021022710231490898215@chinamobile.com>
Content-Type: multipart/Alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart90898215_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/mi8MHBwhJp6csdw6erSZ9EYO7ZQ>
Subject: Re: [alto] ALTO Draft ReCharter WG review
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/alto/>
List-Post: <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 02:23:40 -0000


            Normal   0            7.8 磅   0   2      false   false   false      EN-US   ZH-CN   X-NONE                                                                                 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Hi WG,


  

Here are some considerations of recharter:  

I believe that the multi domain problem is worthy of attention. At present, operators also research in it, which may involve guaranteeing end-to-end network service in the future, such as delay, bandwidth, etc. There are some researches on cross domain deterministic network in the industry, which need some support from management and control plane.  

Who is the provider of Alto service is related to the deployment and cooperation mode. It may be difficult for operators to give too much detailed network information now. If the Alto service belongs to the operator, it may be used to help manage its own network. If Alto service belong to non operators, I think the issue of how to cooperate needs further discussion.


  

Regards,  

Peng








Peng Liu | 刘鹏

China Mobile | 移动研究院

mobile phone:13810146105

email:  liupengyjy@chinamobile.com

 



发件人: Qin Wu

时间: 2021/02/22(星期一)21:45

收件人: IETF ALTO;

抄送人: alto-chairs;alto-ads;

主题: [alto] ALTO Draft ReCharter WG review 

 

Hi, : 

We have requested one hour session for ALTO WG meeting in the upcoming IETF 110, which is arranged on Friday, March 12,  14:30-15:30(UTC).  

The goal is to boil down ALTO recharter and have consensus on charter contents in IETF 110. 

To get this goal, an updated inline draft charter text for ALTO has just been posted to this list,  

This charter has received a couple of rounds of informal review from WG members, chairs and our Ads from brief to deep thorough, 5 new chartered items have been listed. 

We would like to solicit feedback on these new chartered items and your use case, deployment, idea corresponding to these  new chartered items. 

Sharing your past deployment story will also be appreciated. 

  

============================================================================================ 

The ALTO working group was established in 2008 to devise a request/response protocol to allow a host to benefit from a server that is more cognizant  of the network infrastructure than the host is.  

  

The working group has developed an HTTP-based protocol and recent work has reported large-scale deployment of ALTO based solutions supporting applications  such as content distribution networks (CDN).  

  

ALTO is now proposed as a component for cloud-based interactive applications, large-scale data analytics, multi-cloud SD-WAN deployment, and distributed  

computing. In all these cases, exposing network information such as abstract topologies and network function deployment location helps applications.  

  

To support these emerging uses, extensions are needed, and additional functional and architectural features need to be considered as follows: 

  

o Protocol extensions to support a richer and extensible set of policy attributes in ALTO information update request and response. Such policy attributes  may indicate information dependency (e.g., ALTO path-cost/QoS properties with dependency on real-time network  indications), optimization criteria (e.g., lowest latency/throughput network performance objective), and constraints (e.g., relaxation bound of optimization  criteria, domain or network node to be traversed, diversity and redundancy of paths).  

  

o Protocol extensions for facilitating operational automation tasks and improving transport efficiency. In particular, extensions to provide "pub/sub"  mechanisms to allow the client to request and receive a diverse types (such as event-triggered/sporadic, continuous), continuous, customized feed of publisher-generated information. Efforts developed in other working groups such as MQTT Publish / Subscribe  Architecture, WebSub, Subscription to YANG Notifications will be considered, and issues such as scalability (e.g., using unicast or broadcast/multicast, and periodicity of object updates) should be considered.  

  

o The working group will investigate the configuration, management, and operation of ALTO systems and may develop suitable data models. 

  

o Extensions to ALTO services to support multi-domain settings. ALTO is currently specified for a single ALTO server in a single administrative domain,  but a network may consist of  

multiple domains and the potential information sources may not be limited to a certain domain. The working group will investigate extending the ALTO  framework to (1) specify multi-ALTO-server protocol flow and usage guidelines when an ALTO service involves network paths spanning multiple domains with multiple ALTO servers, and (2) extend or introduce ALTO  

services allowing east-west interfaces for multiple ALTO server integration and collaboration. The specifications and extensions should use existing  services whenever possible. The specifications and extensions should consider realistic complexities including incremental deployment, dynamicity, and security issues such as access control, authorization (e.g., an ALTO server provides information for a network  that the server has no authorization), and privacy protection in multi-domain settings. 

  

o The working group will update RFC 7971 to provide operational considerations for recent protocol extensions (e.g., cost calendar, unified properties,  and path vector) and new extensions that the WG develops. New considerations will include decisions about the set of information resources (e.g., what metrics to use), notification of changes either in proactive or reactive mode (e.g., pull the backend, or  trigger just-in-time measurements), aggregation/processing of the collected information  (e.g., compute information and network information )according to the clients’ requests, and integration with new transport mechanisms (e.g., HTTP/2 and HTTP/3). 

  

When the WG considers standardizing information that the ALTO server could provide, the following criteria are important  

to ensure real feasibility: 

  

- Can the ALTO server realistically provide (measure or derive) that information? 

  

- Is it information that the ALTO client cannot find easily some other way? 

  

- Is the distribution of the information allowed by the operator of the network? Does the exposure of the information introduce privacy and information  leakage concerns? 

  

Issues related to the specific content exchanged in systems that make use of ALTO are excluded from the WG's scope, as is the issue of dealing with enforcing the legality of the content. The WG  will also not propose standards on how congestion is signaled, remediated, or avoided. 

  

-Qin Wu (on behalf of chairs)