Re: [Apn] why it is necessary to differentiate the security concern for 5G Vertical Networks from the grand Internet ( was RE: Application-Aware Networking (APN) focused interim

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 04 June 2021 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 133A33A1D01; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 11:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 yfuFhkXua8Yl; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 11:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D05C3A1CFE; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 11:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC2638DA3; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 14:56:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id vhcIP5jfTMtz; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 14:56:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C966138DA2; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 14:56:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D92EAC3B; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 14:55:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "rtgwg\@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "apn\@ietf.org" <apn@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR13MB4922EF9BAC0CCC4BB8CC38E6A93B9@PH0PR13MB4922.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
References: <PH0PR13MB4922A88EFE55FA2398651301A9239@PH0PR13MB4922.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <c78e1bae-042b-e0bb-be4a-c2223d039b11@sandelman.ca> <PH0PR13MB4922EF9BAC0CCC4BB8CC38E6A93B9@PH0PR13MB4922.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 14:55:41 -0400
Message-ID: <13268.1622832941@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apn/IeS_LyHvg17JPCxX8aTVgPMkbTw>
Subject: Re: [Apn] why it is necessary to differentiate the security concern for 5G Vertical Networks from the grand Internet ( was RE: Application-Aware Networking (APN) focused interim
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: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 18:55:53 -0000

Linda Dunbar <ldunbar@futurewei.com> wrote:
    > There is no point convincing you of the 5G value. But one thing for
    > sure, there are a lot of 5G enabled vertical services powered by
    > specialized closed loop networks. Netflex is not one of them.

You've missed the point.
This wasn't about whether 5G was good or bad.
It was about use cases for APN.

(ps: I learnt nothing about 5G from the videos. I actually know a great deal
about it.  I don't believe even the moderate claims will come true, for the
reasons I wrote about: lack of a trust model between end user and operator.
I think that operators will be seriously disappointed)

Two of the examples you gave me for *APN* (+ 5G) involve the public, using
devices they own, accessing high-end sports across a public network.
You've told me that this isn't the use case for APN, so why did I watch these videos?

One example you gave me compared *4G* (3GPP) against 5G for shot-tracking stuff.
Not being a basketball coach, I have really no idea what the effect of
latency is on that.  But, again, I don't know how APN fits into this.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide