Re: [Banana] Charter
Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com> Mon, 25 September 2017 19:53 UTC
Return-Path: <margaretw42@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: banana@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: banana@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02424134598 for <banana@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 HnAxhMasFt2i for <banana@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x234.google.com (mail-qk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1D35134592 for <banana@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id z143so7904673qkb.3 for <banana@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=pOqryzoxEWNYlrNIMLPsz3obGSxtWv86+D4y66cowmw=; b=eqpe7xZYP1EAhDKs3mktcnV63JcQ4rwz/OqFCk5wgWbCSiV2YsXkXhMndM8IPOxiIo lMzetPp0PCuDIV2/UHeCMMhZp1Ws8rO54FXpolBQfYKMU7g4ZcvoYa3vf3SVsV08k2jW e1W4qrirD3caMS6W5sYqcpsvfac6uXEkVvxDq/Bm42xcvV+HQBT9NAhUUGlRysW7YqX3 j5ckCK0vcQQIlsioaiPfEskNn3Uc71anivQ8FuET0fjQCr1n5qkl8piCCfvn44o1PDDl f6OcwXAAhuw5UHOppbG4NU0sWuea+SwFdO7RND4JzbJGSFJaDgMGmz5qO+lqjyPvnut5 MxJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=pOqryzoxEWNYlrNIMLPsz3obGSxtWv86+D4y66cowmw=; b=tNj4NzZQkZxHJXxw37VAdUeKw8RvWrpahwAQSajtSEIBkO0mAa04nhqMMta9Zay8EP JAg8DtAMzKzIl3TNT15KZxmM7K6fQoC6oSRcHESdUV2XZjI98o/3RrgXCC2JQpcFxUPg IUruJW0b2HHA4oQKit1fXCn/wnvXZH29BgdjxMSCfC+IId7wm6yERFVxR2BRyfTKCuEp UKd7pGWB7yOhqIdtgXql0tcqni4FAo40zagHgsDRLopIDz7wyvxfeu62tlyqSuo4RQn6 yva91JxJwIzsp5jrwYFmuk41QjM/2kJvWiXFRaLuXjQJ1/4EQQBp/4zV+HcYplOIaV3O Fc9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUiJZ9jUVzQcbqSio8shLgQp1aD4PgOWdFMRMcis2XPaLV4Tcsr2 0GZE14DtyxtwS7H4xxgrtamWj7Ll
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBSG/gjouJMLaDmLt9lnp/YLzkc+44CuudBjxiaZugRGiFEkmAuMpbaQsMAaRNVpe7WC0qNpg==
X-Received: by 10.55.76.134 with SMTP id z128mr12147153qka.183.1506369194588; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2603:3005:2409:8400:88f8:c564:9b88:b39c? ([2603:3005:2409:8400:88f8:c564:9b88:b39c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o13sm5573816qki.34.2017.09.25.12.53.13 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <A8E3BE83-D6F6-4645-80CD-ED5CC326186F@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:53:12 -0400
Cc: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>, "Muley, Praveen (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <praveen.muley@nokia.com>, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, "banana@ietf.org" <banana@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <85F8DF40-E48F-483B-B577-770A316FECCE@gmail.com>
References: <96A7BC33-FB64-487A-A60D-7AB8504C9DDF@gmail.com> <a1df884a51f246a7969c0057ff78d807@BTWP000357.corp.ads> <C3A4BFB9-EAD7-4B32-90C1-248D6D74ECD1@gmail.com> <9A767D1D-C6CA-4C7D-A281-7150E259881D@gmail.com> <DB5PR07MB13998EE07C5B5D5DBACED79C9B1A0@DB5PR07MB1399.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <7ED94797-5E72-4191-B861-4CD2F410BBD5@gmail.com> <7i60gox0c8.wl-jch@irif.fr> <DB5PR07MB1399FEDB262E0205457EA8AB9BFC0@DB5PR07MB1399.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <87bmqgov69.wl-jch@irif.fr> <DB5PR07MB1399977AFFE9FA7D19A2D34D9BFC0@DB5PR07MB1399.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <0d8ce583860345b89020113f1239be5d@BTWP000357.corp.ads> <21BD0F20-9CE5-466B-992E-93F6D84DB7D4@gmail.com> <95788B92-E8C1-4FE6-9B0C-7F29361D9297@trammell.ch> <d3759d89-9f6e-bcf4-8c44-32f3f435d784@gmail.com> <01e83ac6-0bd0-e7c7-01e4-0ffb7af73034@gmail.com> <4B6D7CF5-E6BC-4ECA-9299-7458A624320B@nokia.com> <HE1PR0701MB21884F35D61DDA53426CDCBEEA9C0@HE1PR0701MB2188.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <D5DE884A.28A3E7%sgundave@cisco.com> <ABACEE0C-8ED6-468B-9746-923321CCCCBB@gmail.com> <E6C17D2345AC7A45B7D054D407AA205C68F5500E@eusaamb105.ericsson.se> <A9F6ED60-98F7-4014-91C1-F7634E51DB2B@ericsson.com> <B6ED8E95-B68C-4EC9-934C-B28AA1CB3587@gmail.com> <7A25BCFD-DC3E-4AC8-AF62-6102E2C4A95B@ericsson.com> <DCD715F7-EDA8-4F7C-9318-63ACE0EF6F0E@gmail.com> <A8E3BE83-D6F6-4645-80CD-ED5CC326186F@ericsson.com>
To: David Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/banana/RCONcsZ4ord1guMvYfs2HlSn2fc>
Subject: Re: [Banana] Charter
X-BeenThere: banana@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Bandwidth Aggregation for interNet Access: Discussion of bandwidth aggregation solutions based on IETF technologies." <banana.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/banana>, <mailto:banana-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/banana/>
List-Post: <mailto:banana@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:banana-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/banana>, <mailto:banana-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:53:19 -0000
Hi Dave, > On Sep 25, 2017, at 2:12 PM, David Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com> wrote: > > Margaret, > > https://www.broadband-forum.org/standards-and-software/downloads/technical-work-in-progress > I believe you may be looking for WT-378 The solutions document for TR-348 - Hybrid Access Broadband Network Architecture for the home and business. See the public link above. (Note: the video is home centric, but my understanding is that the work is broader in scope.) This is the only public description I’m aware of. (Admittedly, it could say more.) Thank you. Yes, this is the sort of thing I was looking for. I will look at the videos and try to better familiarize myself with this work. At this point, I think we are in (at least rough) agreement about the spaces in which the proposed BANANA group and the BBF/5G group could work in ways that are not in conflict with one another. Fortunately for us, I think those are also the spaces in which we both wanted and intended to work! The difficulty lies in putting the concepts into words that will make this clear to everyone. We may differ on one point, which is that if the only two solutions that exist in the world are the BBF/5G solution and our generic, OTT solution, non-5G providers may choose to use our solution to aggregate their customers links (e.g. a Cable/LTE combination). While that isn’t the main scenario for which we would be designing a BANANA solution, I don’t think we should do anything to stop that from working. Do you? > From the Google Doc: “The BANdwidth Aggregation for Network Access (BANANA) Working Group is chartered to develop solution(s) to support dynamic path selection on a per-packet basis in networks that have more than one point of attachment to the Internet.” > > - instead of “…support dynamic path selection on a per-packet basis in networks that have more than one point of attachment to the Internet”, I suggest: “…support dynamic path selection on a per-packet basis for user equipment with more than one point of access to the Internet without operator involvement in the aggregation. (i.e., ‘Over The Top’ (OTT) environment).” This, in my opinion, describes the “OTT” case. I’d be interested to hear from others whether this is sufficient to describe OTT. > > To further support the distinction, anywhere “Internet links” or “link” shows up, it should be change to “Internet access services”. > > Also, I recommend changing: “The Bandwidth Aggregation solutions developed in this group will work in true multi-provider scenarios (i.e. they will not depend on all of the aggregated links being provided by a single Internet access provider nor by a group of cooperating providers). “ > To > “The Bandwidth Aggregation solutions developed in this working group are designed for scenarios where a user or customer wishes to aggregate multiple independent Internet access services that are agnostic of each other. (i.e. the aggregated Internet access services are not provided by a single Internet access provider nor by multiple cooperating providers).” Terms like “internet access services” are not widely used in the IETF, and I am not sure I want to introduce that term in this charter. More importantly, we don't prescribe nor proscribe a business model for our protocols (e.g. say that something will run on user equipment vs. equipment owned by someone else, etc.) — we make all of our protocols safe to run over the Internet, and we enable end-users, operators, system integrators, vendors, service providers, and other SDOs to specify, implement and use them wherever they are useful. I do think I understand what you are driving at, though, so let’s see if I can come up with a way to say it without making it sound like the IETF is trying to dictate where (in the Internet topology) the resulting protocols can and cannot be used. How about this?: OLD: The BANdwidth Aggregation for Network Access (BANANA) Working Group is chartered to develop solution(s) to support dynamic path selection on a per-packet basis in networks that have more than one point of attachment to the Internet. NEW: The BANdwidth Aggregation for Network Access (BANANA) Working Group is chartered to develop solution(s) to support dynamic path selection on a per-packet basis in networks that have more than one point of attachment to the Internet. These solutions will be designed to work in situations where Internet access is provided by more than Internet Service Provider, and without cooperation between a set of Internet Service Providers (i.e. these will be Over-The-Top (OTT) solutions). And this?: OLD: The Bandwidth Aggregation solutions developed in this group will work in true multi-provider scenarios (i.e. they will not depend on all of the aggregated links being provided by a single Internet access provider nor by a group of cooperating providers). Any protocols defined by this group will be IP-based, link-layer-independent solutions, and they will be designed to work across NATs and other middle boxes, as needed. NEW: The Bandwidth Aggregation solution(s) developed in this working group will be designed to work in scenarios where Internet access links from multiple, independent Internet access providers are being aggregated (i.e. where all of the aggregated Internet access links are not provided by a single Internet access provider, nor by a set of cooperating providers). Any protocols defined by this group will be IP-based, link-layer-independent solutions, and they will be designed to work across NATs and other middle boxes, as needed. Would those changes capture your points? Or am I still missing something important? > Also regarding other SDOs: From the Google Doc: “The BANANA WG will also work with other IETF WGs (and other SDOs, as requested) that define additional Bandwidth Aggregation mechanisms (if any) to ensure that the protocols defined by the BANANA WG will meet the needs of those additional mechanisms.” > - What is meant here by “mechanisms”? Thinking in the BBF context, I would have assumed “mechanism” to be a protocol or protocol extension and that these would prefer to be done in IETF rather than elsewhere. For the BBF context, it seems like the word “mechanism” could/should be substituted for “solution”. Are there other SDOs that would define aggregation protocols that BANANA would work with? (e.g., MP-TCP?) Assuming yes, perhaps two points to be made in this paragraph then: A. work with other SDOs defining solutions to ensure no conflict; B. work with other WGs & SDOs defining protocol mechanisms to consider their needs. “Mechanisms" is the word I used to replace “Encapsulations”, because some people thought that “Encapsulations” automatically implied tunneling. I will try to be clearer, as this change definitely made things less clear in this particular paragraph. > I suggest changing the text to: > “The BANANA WG will also work with other IETF WGs, and other SDOs, as requested, that: A. define Bandwidth Aggregation solutions (e.g., Broadband Forum) to ensure that the solutions defined by the BANANA WG avoid conflict. B. define additional Bandwidth Aggregation mechanisms in a way that ensures that the protocols adopted and possibly enhanced by the BANANA WG will consider the needs of the other organizations.” I agree with what you are sayingthere, and will attempt to incorporate this edit. I am also thinking that just being more direct here might be better — referencing the actual BBF/5G work by name, and saying that we will work with that group, as needed, to resolve any conflicts or concerns, perhaps. Is there a 3GPP moniker for this group that I should also include? How about this?: OLD: The BANANA WG will also work with other IETF WGs (and other SDOs, as requested) that define additional Bandwidth Aggregation mechanisms (if any) to ensure that the protocols defined by the BANANA WG will meet the needs of those additional mechanisms. NEW: The BANANA WG will work with other IETF WGs that define "Bandwidth Aggregation mechanisms" (as defined above), to ensure that the provisioning and signaling protocols selected or specified by the BANANA WG will work for those Bandwidth Aggregation mechanisms. The BANANA WG will also work with other SDO(s) that are defining Bandwidth Aggregation solutions (e.g. Broadband Forum TR-378) to ensure that there are no conflicts between our work, and to ensure that there are no negative consequences for users when multiple Bandwidth Aggregation solutions are available in a single environment. How do those changes look to you? What do other people think? Margaret
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [Banana] Charter N.Leymann
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Dave Dolson
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones philip.eardley
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Dave Dolson
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Jordan Melzer
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones David Allan I
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Jordan Melzer
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones David Allan I
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones David Allan I
- Re: [Banana] [ALU] Re: Charter Text w/Milestones Muley, Praveen (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [Banana] [ALU] Re: Charter Text w/Milestones Zhangmingui (Martin)
- Re: [Banana] [ALU] Re: Charter Text w/Milestones Philipp S. Tiesel
- Re: [Banana] [ALU] Re: Charter Text w/Milestones Muley, Praveen (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] [ALU] Re: Charter Text w/Milestones Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Jordan Melzer
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] [ALU] Re: Charter Text w/Milestones pierrick.seite
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Jordan Melzer
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Text w/Milestones Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [Banana] Charter Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [Banana] Charter Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Muley, Praveen (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [Banana] Charter mrcullen42
- Re: [Banana] Charter mrcullen42
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Zhangmingui (Martin)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Muley, Praveen (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter David Allan I
- Re: [Banana] Charter Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Zhangmingui (Martin)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Banana] Charter HeidemannC
- Re: [Banana] Charter N.Leymann
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Tommy Pauly
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter philip.eardley
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter David Sinicrope
- Re: [Banana] Charter Florin Baboescu
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Banana] Charter Zhangmingui (Martin)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter David Sinicrope
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Joerg Deutschmann
- Re: [Banana] Charter N.Leymann
- Re: [Banana] Charter Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [Banana] Charter David Sinicrope
- Re: [Banana] Charter Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Banana] Charter David Sinicrope