Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9556 <draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-edge-10> for your review

[Xavier De Foy <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thank you very much for the review and updates. I generally agree with Dirks replies and added a few minor comments with the marker [xdf] below. I believe at this stage there are a couple of open items (one about the figure, and one about possibly adding references).  About the figures, I don’t have a strong opinion (the current figures, which I guess are still not scaled, look fine to me on PC and phone, and I don’t know how to test with scaling). For the second point I’ll check with the editor of the use case section.

Best Regards,
Xavier.

From: Dirk Kutscher <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 10:43 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Xavier De Foy <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9556 <draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-edge-10> for your review


Hello,

many thanks for the careful review and the questions.

Some answers inline:

1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been
updated as follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section
3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review.

Original:
IoT Edge Challenges and Functions

Current:
Internet of Things (IoT) Edge Challenges and Functions
-->

ACK

2) <!--[rfced] Dirk and Matthias: Is there a "short name" we could use
for your organizations in the header?-->

For Dirk: HKUST(GZ)

3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->

  *   in-network computing
  *   in network caching
  *   in network storage

4) <!--[rfced] To help with longevity, we have updated uses of
"currently", "today" and the like to say "at the time of
writing". Please let us know any objections.-->

ACK

5) <!--[rfced] Is the meaning of this sentence that IoT technology is
being applied in more types of domains? Or that the applications
listed are more demanding than other domains? (That is, is the
healthcare domain itself more demanding or is there some
application inside the healthcare domain that is more demanding?)

Original:
IoT technology is used with increasingly demanding applications, for
example, in industrial, automotive and healthcare domains, leading
to new challenges.

Perhpas A:
IoT technology is used with increasingly demanding applications in
domains such as industrial, automotive, and healthcare, which leads
to new challenges.

Perhaps B:
IoT technology is used with increasingly demanding applications, for
example, the industrial, automotive, and healthcare domains, leading
to new challenges.
-->

Variant A sounds good.

6) <!--[rfced] Should "device" be updated to "devise" or is there another
way to rephrase this sentence?

Original:
Conversely, a cloud back-end might want to device data
even if it is currently asleep.

Perhaps:
Conversely, a cloud backend might want to access device data
even if the device is currently asleep.
-->

Good catch – we meant the second variant.

7) <!--[rfced] The following three sentences use "typically". We will
update to use another word to reduce redundancy unless we hear
objection.

Original:
The service and application life-cycle is
typically using an NFV-like management and orchestration model.

The platform typically enables advertising or consuming services
hosted on the platform (e.g., the Mp1 interface in ETSI MEC supports
service discovery and communication), and enables communication with
local and remote endpoints (e.g., message routing function in IoT
gateways). The platform is typically extensible to edge applications
because it can advertise a service that other edge applications can
consume.

Perhaps:
Typically, the service and application life cycle is
using an NFV-like management and orchestration model.

The platform generally enables advertising or consuming services
hosted on the platform (e.g., the Mp1 interface in ETSI MEC supports
service discovery and communication), and enables communication with
local and remote endpoints (e.g., message routing function in IoT
gateways). The platform is usually extensible to edge applications
because it can advertise a service that other edge applications can
consume.
-->

Yes, thank you.

8) <!--[rfced] Please review the following questions related to this text:

a) We are having trouble parsing "the list associated logical
functions". Is "list" intended to be a noun or a verb?

b) The placement of "in this section" is somewhat jarring (and makes
two introductory phrases in the sentence). May we update as follows?

Original:
Although there are many approaches to
edge computing, in this section, we attempt to lay out a general
model and the list associated logical functions.

Perhaps A (list is a noun):
Although there are many approaches to
edge computing, this section lays out an attempt at a general
model and the list of associated logical functions.

Perhaps B (list is a verb):
Although there are many approaches to
edge computing, this sections lays out an attempt at a general
model and lists associated logical functions.
-->

Variant B sounds good.

9) <!--[rfced] The SVG figures in Section 4.2 have their width and height
specified, which will make the artwork not scale. Please consider
whether scaling should be enabled. Scaling will allow the figure
to be resized when it is viewed on a mobile device; however,
there may be aesthetic trade-offs (e.g., image may appear too
large on a desktop screen or different figures may scale
differently based on their relative sizes). Please review the
HTML and PDF outputs and let us know how to proceed.
-->

The figure should probably be scaled so that the font size in the figure corresponds to the one in the text and so that the figure is not wider than the text width. What is a good way to achieve this in a portable fashion?

[xdf] I don’t have a strong opinion on this, but after checking the pdf and html links you provide at the end of this email, on a laptop and on a phone, the 2 figures look fine as they are right now.

10) <!--[rfced] In the following text, how does the last clause relate to
the rest of the sentence? If our suggested rephrase does not
correctly capture your intent, please let us know how to
rephrase.

Original:
In a distributed image processing application, some image processing
functions can be similarly executed at the edge or in the cloud,
while preprocessing, which helps limiting the amount of uploaded data,
is performed by the IoT device.

Perhaps:
Similarly, in a distributed image processing application, some
image processing functions can be executed at the edge or
in the cloud, which helps with limiting the amount
of uploaded data to be performed by the IoT device.

-->

How about this:

Similarly, in a distributed image processing application, some image processing
functions can be executed at the edge or in the cloud. To limit the amount of data to be uploaded to central cloud functions, IoT edge devices may pre-process data.

11) <!--[rfced] Should "IRTF attendees" be further clarified? Is this a
particular meeting? Participants of all Research Groups?-->

I suggest "participants of T2TRG meetings".

12) <!--[rfced] To avoid the awkward readability of both "used" and
"using" in the same sentence, may we make the following update?

Original:

Broker-based solutions can be used, for example, using an IoT
gateway as a broker to discover IoT resources.

Perhaps:

Broker-based solutions can be implemented; an example would be using an
IoT gateway as a broker to discover IoT resources.
-->

How about:
"In a broker-based system, an IoT gateway can act as a broker to discover IoT resources."

13) <!--[rfced] Please review our update to "in replacement or complement"
and let us know if it does not capture your intended meaning.

Original:
More decentralized solutions can also be used in replacement or
complement, for example, CoAP enables multicast discovery of an IoT
device, and CoAP service discovery enables obtaining a list of
resources made available by this device [RFC7252].

Current:
More decentralized solutions can also be used in replacement of or
in complement to the broker-based solutions; for example, CoAP
enables multicast discovery of an IoT device and CoAP service
discovery enables one to obtain a list of resources made
available by this device [RFC7252].
-->

Yes, much better.

14) <!--[rfced] Please review our update to the following text to ensure
we've correctly captured your intended meaning. Because this
text includes an example within an example and both are within a
list, please review carefully.

Original:

* Adapting cloud management platforms to the edge, to account
for its distributed nature, e.g., using Conflict-free Replicated
Data Types (CRDT) [Jeffery], heterogeneity
and customization, e.g., using intent-based management mechanisms
[Cao], and limited resources.

Current:

* Adapting cloud management platforms to the edge to account for
its distributed nature, e.g., using Conflict-free Replicated Data
Types (CRDTs) [Jeffery], heterogeneity and customization (e.g.,
using intent-based management mechanisms [Cao]), and limited
resources
-->

Thanks for spotting this. This sentence seems problematic for a couple of reasons. The examples are quite specific. If co-authors and our shepherd agree, we could simplify as follows:

Adapting cloud management platforms to the edge to account for its distributed nature, heterogeneity, need for customization, and limited resources.

[xdf] sounds good to me. I would propose keeping the references, by adding a sentence after the one proposed by Dirk. Something like this (if co-authors and shepherd agree):

OLD:

* Adapting cloud management platforms to the edge, to account
for its distributed nature, e.g., using Conflict-free Replicated
Data Types (CRDT) [Jeffery], heterogeneity
and customization, e.g., using intent-based management mechanisms
[Cao], and limited resources.

NEW:

* Adapting cloud management platforms to the edge to account for its distributed nature, heterogeneity, need for customization, and limited resources. For example, using Conflict-free Replicated Data Types (CRDTs) [Jeffery] or intent-based management mechanisms [Cao].

15) <!--[rfced] How can we break this run-on sentence up for the reader?

Original:

* (Computation placement) Selecting, in a centralized or
distributed/peer-to-peer manner, an appropriate compute device
based on available resources, location of data input and data
sinks, compute node properties, etc., and with varying goals
including end-to-end latency, privacy, high availability, energy
conservation, or network efficiency, for example, using load-
balancing techniques to avoid congestion.

Perhaps:

* Computation placement: in a centralized or
distributed/peer-to-peer manner, selecting an appropriate compute
device. The selection is based on available resources, location of
data input and data sinks, compute node properties, etc. with
varying goals. These goals include end-to-end latency, privacy, high
availability, energy conservation, or network efficiency. For
example, using load-balancing techniques to avoid congestion.

-->

Yes, much better – thanks!

16) <!--[rfced] We are having difficulty parsing the parenthetical. Please
review and let us know how it may be updated for clarity.

Original:

* Maintaining consistency, freshness, reliability, and privacy of
stored/cached data in systems that are distributed, constrained,
and dynamic (e.g., owing to end devices and computing nodes churn
or mobility), and which can have additional data governance
constraints on data storage location.
-->

I suggest the following:

  *   Maintaining consistency, freshness, reliability, and privacy of stored/cached data in systems that are distributed, constrained, and dynamic (e.g., due to node mobility, energy-saving regimes, and disruptions) and which can have additional data governance

constraints on data storage location.

17) <!--[rfced] Is the following sentence intended to be a list of
characteristics of communication brokering? If so, may we update
it as follows?

Original:

Communication brokering is a typical function of IoT edge computing
that facilitates communication with IoT devices, enabling clients
to register as recipients for data from devices, as well as
forwarding/ routing of traffic to or from IoT devices, enabling
various data discovery and redistribution patterns, for example,
north-south with clouds, east-west with other edge devices
[I-D.mcbride-edge-data-discovery-overview].

Perhaps:

Communication brokering is a typical function of IoT edge computing
that facilitates communication with IoT devices, enables clients to
register as recipients for data from devices forwards/routes of
traffic to or from IoT devices, enables various data discovery and
redistribution patterns (for example, north-south with clouds and
east-west with other edge devices
[I-D.mcbride-edge-data-discovery-overview].
-->

Thanks, much better. Some additional edits:

Communication brokering is a typical function of IoT edge computing
that facilitates communication with IoT devices, enables clients to
register as recipients for data from devices, forwards
traffic to or from IoT devices, enables various data discovery and
redistribution patterns (for example, north-south with clouds and
east-west with other edge devices
[I-D.mcbride-edge-data-discovery-overview].

[xdf] minor typo: need to close the parenthesis at the end of the paragraph.

18) <!--[rfced] It's unclear how "dynamic" fits into the sentence below.
Is it meant to read "dynamic environtments"?

Original:
* Addressing concerns such as limited resources, privacy, dynamic,
and heterogeneous environments to deploy machine learning at the
edge:

Perhaps:
* Addressing concerns such as limited resources, privacy, and dynamic
and heterogeneous environments to deploy machine learning at the
edge:
-->

Yes.

19) <!-- [rfced] Please ensure that the guidelines listed in Section 2.1 of RFC 5743 have been adhered to in this document. -->

IMO, "Status of This Memo" has all the required information.

20) <!--[rfced] Throughout the document, there were certain places we may
have expected a citation. Please review cases like the following
(there may be more, just examples):

As the number of people working on farming has been decreasing over
time,...

*Smart Construction*
Safety is critical at construction sites. Every year, many
construction workers lose their lives because of falls,
collisions, electric shocks, and other accidents.

Policy makers have begun to provide frameworks that limit the usage
of personal data and impose strict requirements on data controllers
and processors.

-->

Good point – I suggest that we (authors) go through the document and add references to such statements.

21) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to
be used inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let
us know if/how they may be made consistent.

a) Capitalization

Big Data vs. big data
Cloud vs. cloud
Industrial IoT vs. industrial IoT
Smart Grid vs. smart grid
Thing vs. thing
Edge vs. edge

I'm in favor of using lowercase for all terms except for "Thing".

b) hyphenation

edge computing vs. edge-computing (when in attributive position (before a noun))
-->

How about just using "edge computing"?

22) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following
abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style
Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully
to ensure correctness.

Content Delivery Network (CDN)
Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
Discovery Domain Set (DDS)
Information-Centric Networking (ICN)
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)
Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC)
Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)
Open Platform Communications Unified Architecture (OPC UA)
Software-Defined Networking (SDN)
Virtual Machine (VM)
-->

Looks good.

23) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
online Style Guide
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. For example, please
consider whether "native" should be updated.

In addition, please consider whether "traditional" should be updated
for clarity. While the NIST website
<https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1>
indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
"Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
-->

Personally, I don't think "native" and "tradition" needs updating (but open to suggestions from co-authors).

Many thanks for the careful review and the useful suggestions!

Best regards,
Dirk

Thank you.

RFC Editor/ap/mf

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2024/03/18

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.

Planning your review
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

* RFC Editor questions

Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:

<!-- [rfced] ... -->

These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

* Changes submitted by coauthors

Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

* Content

Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references

* Copyright notices and legends

Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

* Semantic markup

Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary> .

* Formatted output

Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.

Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:

* your coauthors

* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> (the RPC team)

* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:

* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.

Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.

Files
-----

The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.txt

Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
diff files of the XML.

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.original.v2v3.xml

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
only:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.form.xml

Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9556

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9556 (draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-edge-10)

Title : IoT Edge Challenges and Functions
Author(s) : J. Hong, Y. Hong, X. de Foy, M. Kovatsch, E. Schooler, D. Kutscher
WG Chair(s) :

Area Director(s) :

[Banner]

[Banner]<http://www.interdigital.com/white_papers/defining-the-xr-experience-enabling-the-immersivity-ecosystem-?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=xr&utm_content=banner&utm_campaign=defining_the_xr_experience>

Defining the XR Experience: Enabling the Immersivity Ecosystem<http://www.interdigital.com/white_papers/defining-the-xr-experience-enabling-the-immersivity-ecosystem-?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=xr&utm_content=banner&utm_campaign=defining_the_xr_experience>
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of any privilege or confidentiality obligation. If you received this communication in error, please do not review, copy or distribute it, notify me immediately by email, and delete the original message and any attachments. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message or any attachment should be construed as a digital or electronic signature.