Re: [Apn] [arch-d] Question List for APN: Q#8

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 01 October 2020 08:22 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: apn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED1DA3A0E39; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 01:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 h2vLEoUiyhh5; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 01:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A2143A0E32; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 01:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=34324; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1601540528; x=1602750128; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=bvtCmkefE5FpiaHYkRZAD9+AWM1Kt3k3cE8j0EkuHBo=; b=OQHmIT/CH5XVGswN9Ff9wulq9lulGrcHJrkoYbHNOIactD6ZI1B17/rE qCbvXik+bUsQzFvw8ET1STfjT/IzTMsWQ6aI0hWnMtcsWbcsQeg7Oebn6 Euitp9DEhgw1M3lEAzg6Zb7N+I0ObpUalj6QLKOhCCRCgbmMF4mXBSP04 s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AUAQCWkHVf/xbLJq1gHQEBAQEJARI?= =?us-ascii?q?BBQUBgX4FAQsBgSKBd1UBIBIshD2JAoghJpo5gWQFCwEBAQ0BARgBCgwEAQG?= =?us-ascii?q?EB0QCgjImNwYOAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYVcDIVyAQEBAwEBASFEBwQHBQs?= =?us-ascii?q?LEQEDAQEBIAEGAwICJx8DBggGExSDEgGCXCAPryJ2gTKFU4RxBoE4AY1IggC?= =?us-ascii?q?BEScMEIFPfj6CXAEBgSEEEV+CYTOCLQSLWIVaphSCcYMThWiJRIInhXQDH4M?= =?us-ascii?q?OigCFE452nXiRRoNdAgQGBQIVgWokgVczGggbFTsqAYI+CTUSGQ2SEIUUhUQ?= =?us-ascii?q?/AzA3AgYBCQEBAwmMTIFmYAEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.77,323,1596499200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="30040314"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 01 Oct 2020 08:22:03 +0000
Received: from [10.61.236.49] ([10.61.236.49]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0918M1HI026621 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Oct 2020 08:22:02 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <95631148-B599-48C7-A295-63DEE53784E4@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5EFAB781-FFAE-44E1-8C78-76BCC38CFB6A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:22:01 +0200
In-Reply-To: <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE19435D07@dggeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Cc: "apn@ietf.org" <apn@ietf.org>, "network-tokens@ietf.org" <network-tokens@ietf.org>, "architecture-discuss@iab.org" <architecture-discuss@iab.org>
To: "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <pengshuping@huawei.com>
References: <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE19435D07@dggeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.236.49, [10.61.236.49]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apn/-4iKX5Qh9GHFoJ2wZqm4dTKXDm8>
Subject: Re: [Apn] [arch-d] Question List for APN: Q#8
X-BeenThere: apn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Application-aware Networking <apn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apn>, <mailto:apn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apn/>
List-Post: <mailto:apn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apn>, <mailto:apn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 08:22:11 -0000

Hi Shuping

I would suggest that this question not be given much time, since if you have two people in a room, they will have at least three definitions of “net neutrality”, and it just gets worse when you add more people.  I would you rather focus on what APN means for end-to-end security and privacy, and what information elements are available to intermediaries to make decisions (e.g., Questions 9 and 10 from below).

Eliot

> On 29 Sep 2020, at 02:54, Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
>  
> #8. Does APN violate network neutrality?
>  
> Answers: It’s important to realize that under the open Internet regulations there is still the possibility to do the differentiation. An easy example to understand is that in the FBB scenario, you can have different speeds on the access. 
>  
> Moreover, any application can run on any QoS level. It is not necessary that all applications have to run on the same level, but any application can choose which QoS level it will run on, in the case where you have multiple QoS levels available. 
>  
> APN offers application-aware network services open to all the applications, and it lets applications to decide themselves whether to go on board or not and which SLA levels they would like their traffic to be entitled.
>  
> Best regards,
> Shuping
>  
>  
> From: Lizhenbin 
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 10:35 PM
> To: apn@ietf.org <mailto:apn@ietf.org>
> Cc: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com <mailto:pengshuping@huawei.com>>
> Subject: Question List for APN
>  
> Hi Folks,
> Thanks very much for your attention to APN work. After much preparation work, we summarized the key questions to be clarified for APN which also were always asked. In fact in the past discussion and the APN side meeting of IETF108, many of these questions were discussed and clarified. Here we propose these questions together for your convenience.
>  
> The questions to be clarified are as follows:
> #1. Which layer is for APN to do the application-aware work?
> #2. Does APN provide services within a limited-domain or Internet?
> #3. Which area in IETF would the APN work fit better?
> #4. What is the relationship between APN and other attempts in IETF’s history?
> #5. What are the valuable use cases/usage scenarios of APN?
> #6. Is the fine-granularity operations needed/desired in the network?
> #7. Why not just use DSCP?
> #8. Does APN violate network neutrality?
> #9. Will APN raise security issues since application-aware information is carried in the APN packets?
> #10. Will APN raise privacy issues since application-aware information is carried in the APN packets?
>  
> Shuping Peng will send the detailed answers for these questions in the mailing list in the following one or two weeks. The questions and answers may be not only be sent in the APN mailing list, but also be copied to the architecture discussion mailing list and the network token mailing list for more cross-area feedback if necessary.
>  
> If you have any comments on these questions and answers, we can go on to discuss through the mailing list.
>  
>  
> Best Regards,
> Zhenbin (Robin)
>  
>  
>  
>  <> 
> From: Apn [mailto:apn-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:apn-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Lizhenbin
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:22 PM
> To: apn@ietf.org <mailto:apn@ietf.org>
> Subject: [Apn] Welcome to APN Mailing List
>  
> Hi Folks,
>  
> Welcome to join the APN mailing list. We are glad to have more discussion through the mailing list as the follow-up of the IETF108 APN side meeting.
> In the process of APN work, many historic work items such as SPUD, PLUS, etc. have been proposed. It has been tried to be clarified that APN focuses
> on the network layer and limited domains. Concerns on the security and privacy issues also have been proposed many times about the work. It also
> has been tried to be clarified that in the trustable limited domains the security and privacy issues can be under control. These are the reasons why APN
> work is based in the RTG area instead of ART/TSV areas.
>  
> But because of too much historic work to be clarified and its proposing the cross-area discussion for which RTG/APP/TSV/INT/SEC/IRTF are involved, it is
> necessary to have more discussion to clarify the scope and work items for APN. We wish the mailing list would be helpful to the work and promoting the
> cross-area communication to understand each other better.
>  
> You can get yourself up to speed with our discussions so far by seeing the materials at < https://github.com/APN-Community/ <https://github.com/APN-Community/>>, especially the materials
> From the virtual IETF 108  APN side meeting at < https://github.com/APN-Community/IETF108-Side-Meeting-APN <https://github.com/APN-Community/IETF108-Side-Meeting-APN>>. This link also gives you pointers to
> some of the relevant Internet-Drafts.
>  
> Over the next few weeks we will try to guide discussion by introducing some questions for debate. But please also raise your own issues and concerns
> and contribute to the exchanges on this list.
>  
> Look forwarding to have more fun discussion in the mailing list.
>  
>  
> Best Regards,
> Dan & Zhenbin
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org <mailto:Architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>