IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [arch-d] ETSI launches new group on Non-IP Networking addressing 5G new services

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Wed, 08 April 2020 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0223A1646 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 13:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.871
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.871 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, 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 I_CuERdg2yYX for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 13:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 439A13A1093 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 13:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45BA2548017; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 22:07:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 3D344440040; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 22:07:31 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 22:07:31 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
Cc: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200408200731.GL28965@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <60a10451-5fbd-fcec-5389-7a72870dcc84@gmail.com> <3F26D0A8-28DE-4F35-B4B9-2346A8AED46F@gmail.com> <CAPv4CP8TYfhr1MjPdJ3B3prmTUS4rQi6MMHiDKJhehya-RaHiw@mail.gmail.com> <D5BA7A14-1E99-4F78-8B3D-BDBCCD0DCEFF@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D5BA7A14-1E99-4F78-8B3D-BDBCCD0DCEFF@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/5HjOS_8Ulds2HF02LxAC2Fj1Qbw>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] ETSI launches new group on Non-IP Networking addressing 5G new services
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 20:07:38 -0000

On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 12:22:37PM -0700, Tony Li wrote:
> > So ... we will get this, with IP and associated protocols layered over it, and all the applications over that. 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly fine.  We cannot stop them from creating overlays and as long as they are an overlay, they do not pervert the base architecture.
> If they do come up with something interesting, we???ll be able to integrate it.

Indeed. See my email about us not even acknowleding
architecturally our own layering (Network / Internetwork).

If a new underlay ("Network Layer") from 3GPP or some other
SDO would define great new better than best effort service
distinctions, IETF would be really bad & slow on mapping these
into end-to-end service distinction controllable by applications.

"Please try to figure out how your new underlay fits into
 the crappy DiffServ Model of the IETF".

Alas, i think as bad as IETF is, any other network layer SDO
work is worse. When 3GPP did broadcast services (3G times ?),
it didn't even bother to map it to IP multicast on top of it,
but expected every application to implement against their new isolated
service interface. Guess how successful that was.

Toerless

> Tony
> 

> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss


-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email