Re: [arch-d] Questions for APN: Q#6 and Q#7 Sun, 27 September 2020 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 986153A0ADD for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.747
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wENu03oFg7IA for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FA763A0AF3 for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d19so2117115pld.0 for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=sender:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=7Kpfpa7SUjKs93EDYDiEuaIfBTUMVK7oU9mw3WRQOt8=; b=Y2+K8WOC0OLZhYuCBQoIr8yv8xGCyBtfztCdIaMMGOz4NTSEBZgEYePCtR3k3IteH3 wfldVMrEX8+93ubN64Dn/qSprfds79KAxHATQiOTujuikpItUS3gWd/EqcmfmCSIqOmQ /KaZAt+gFV7aR+DXRXICr0byj+vMdUhrscVuC0ba65zjHrIVYVNE4XSDJ30WKRObAJH1 QLsGdEdHMuEEPdYnuEzmF+TmnPqwKgwkA/1toPUhHYDk0otSXBLS/aAzsVhqI7uutiHS 7bP7c7CYSznUBW1jio895g6/D9fMIzqNjccEhjlLg/BHNKDLNGG2lMg7SScBUpkkJWBa haZw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=7Kpfpa7SUjKs93EDYDiEuaIfBTUMVK7oU9mw3WRQOt8=; b=Y79XmH1iciibaFGTzHib+1tVscTcAfPaVnjolQjF4yl7/WsIw9HSrlC43I5kqPUZHp UpdUQmqr7coPaL+fl+j3+7qHscw3rTvGwAUOJmaolcpTFAJe9FoW6k0fWq2tnxl7GupR 3JpqYwr9TjmKqqY5zWnmHPsvk1xJvphDLFwr3YQA0PSo+LaqNWrqF3mJhxFzy2yLBq9I AYwjuweRu0up9BDvOJIbyOMfK6zwrQNCgYwi/rSTo3DoLWnPzSB3H9HodL+BVvQSgNl5 9mrhFQv8U9NV9qrAgiBJMN30vAt5NDZouUXRPwfS8GmyRPYSb/OC06Q7/GPXEMOpx65i uU6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532s2KZPyV6GlBle1f1/6Ul2hUtXHkiGYCB5vyOe9riWohhLFXm/ Pof+oxJk9UiifVNLM5G1BGM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwvTRnNf+jDCAwB9s+cMvdGUK5akcYanVuegUpisVRt3hMdHaPWZw/76kncUTFG96gSl4P3kA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:524:b029:d2:6379:a975 with SMTP id 33-20020a1709020524b02900d26379a975mr7916584plf.61.1601227033550; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id n67sm7636092pgn.14.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Tony Li <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_56797084-B553-40EB-A3A5-D0BFA78BC858"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:17:11 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
To: "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Questions for APN: Q#6 and Q#7
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:17:17 -0000

Hi Shuping,

Just how many bits are we talking then? And where are they in the packet?


> On Sep 27, 2020, at 6:26 AM, Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <> wrote:
> Dear all,
> #6. Is the fine-granularity operation needed/desired in the network?
> Answers: 5G enables various demanding applications that desire high reliability and ultra-low latency requirements. These demanding applications or mission-critical applications desire to be differentiated and treated specially. However, in the current network with the existing mechanisms, these fine-granularity requirements cannot be fulfilled.
> #7. Why not just use DSCP?
> Answers: DSCP is only a few bits and not sufficient for indicating the various applications and their different requirements. It needs much richer expressions than the DSCP. Moreover, DSCP can be remarked at the network edge. 
> Best regards,
> Shuping
> From: Lizhenbin 
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 10:35 PM
> To: <>
> Cc: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) < <>>
> 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 [ <>] On Behalf Of Lizhenbin
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:22 PM
> To: <>
> 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 < <>>, especially the materials
> From the virtual IETF 108  APN side meeting at < <>>. 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
> <>
> <>