Re: [Banana] Updated Charter

["Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[e-mail]>]

Margaret,

> If you feel that such work would actually be valuable to the community,
>please write drafts. If not, please don't try to assign that work to
>others, as a hurdle to prevent or delay work that you do not support.


This is a discussion on charter scope. What should be in the “IETF Banana
WG charter” is the point of discussion.  We are not assigning work to you,
or to any one. If this becomes a WG, it is an IETF WG that any one can
contribute and not some personal WG that belongs to few people. So, I am
not sure why you are reading these comments as “work assignment”.

I am providing my comments in an objective manner and so use of the
phrases such as, “as a hurdle to prevent or delay work”, is not
appreciated. 

As you have seen in this mailer, many of us do not agree with this open,
solution-oriented charter. I have cited past examples and how Banana
charter departs from those IETF conventions. I have raised very specific
questions to the AD in my long email. I also do not have to remind on the
lack of agreement in IETF97 on PS, and a straight charter text discussion
in IETF99; or a long 2 to 3 year Banana history with the past AD’s not
chartering this work.

If somehow this charter text manages to go beyond this point and hits
IESG, I am certain we have processes and tools in place for appeals and
that IESG will review these discussions carefully and put some bounds on
this charter.



Sri






On 9/26/17, 8:48 AM, "Margaret Wasserman" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Sri and Wim,
>
>I understand that you do not think that the BANANA WG should be chartered
>to do any protocol work at this time -- that we should work only on a
>problem statement, models, informational documents, etc.
>
>I have not changed the charter to reflect your input for two reasons:  1)
>I don't believe that the majority of the people who are engaged in the
>BANANA work agree with you, and 2) I don't think such a group would be
>successful, because there would not be sufficient interest to do the work.
>
>If you feel that such work would actually be valuable to the community,
>please write drafts.  If not, please don't try to assign that work to
>others, as a hurdle to prevent or delay work that you do not support.
>
>Margaret
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 26, 2017, at 10:53 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
>><[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> My 2 cents on this and I believe this is where a lot of controversy is
>>> coming from, is why would we not charter Banana as a WG which is
>>>defining
>>> an information model that is required to execute banana. So banana
>>> defines which information needs to be exchanged and what the banana
>>> entities do with it to perform banana As such the actual protocol works
>>> can be done in different WG(s) and we can leverage existing work as Sri
>>> was pointing out.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> That makes sense to me.
>> 
>> 
>> - No new  protocols (signaling or encapsulation) or protocol changes
>> - No selection of ³The Banana Solution², or solution work
>> - No ³Banana² branding on any protocol/solution; or the terminology of
>> ³Banana boxes², ³Banana links² ..etc.
>> 
>> - Document various protocol approaches for realizing multipath between
>>two
>> gateways as an informational RFC; identify current art; recommend
>> respective protocol WG¹s or INT/Transport Area to standardize extensions
>> - Specify Algorithm and analysis for per-packet load-balancing;
>> implementation considerations; without tying to any protocol/solution;
>> even BBF can make use of this algorith
>> 
>> This is some useful work and can benefit the community and other working
>> groups; will not impact vendor solutions, market situation, result in
>> definition of alternative protocols which do the same.
>> SDO¹s can leverage this work and focus on system architecture/solution.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/25/17, 10:36 PM, "Banana on behalf of Henderickx, Wim (Nokia -
>> BE/Antwerp)" <[e-mail] on behalf of
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> My 2 cents on this and I believe this is where a lot of controversy is
>>> coming from, is why would we not charter Banana as a WG which is
>>>defining
>>> an information model that is required to execute banana. So banana
>>> defines which information needs to be exchanged and what the banana
>>> entities do with it to perform banana
>>> As such the actual protocol works can be done in different WG(s) and we
>>> can leverage existing work as Sri was pointing out.
>>> 
>>> Would this work for people? My 2 cents, just a try to help.
>>> 
>>> On 25/09/2017, 22:13, "Banana on behalf of David Allan I"
>>> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]>
>>>wrote:
>>> 
>>>   I'd probably be happier losing signaling. IMO it is an overloaded
>>> term...
>>> 
>>>   "specify protocol(s) that can be used..."
>>> 
>>>   WDYT?
>>>   Dave
>>> 
>>>   -----Original Message-----
>>>   From: Margaret Cullen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>   Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 12:57 PM
>>>   To: David Allan I <[e-mail]>
>>>   Cc: [e-mail]
>>>   Subject: Re: [Banana] Updated Charter
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   Good point, Dave!
>>> 
>>>   I am a little concerned about the overuse of the term ³mechanism²,
>>> though (since I define Bandwidth Aggregation mechanisms in the text).
>>>So
>>> how about just changing ³protocol² to ³protocol(s)"?:
>>> 
>>>   OLD:
>>> 
>>>       Select or specify a signalling protocol that can be used to send
>>>       control information between BANANA Boxes, including:
>>> 
>>>   NEW:
>>> 
>>>       Select or specify signaling protocol(s) that can be used to send
>>>       control information between BANANA Boxes, including:
>>> 
>>>   Or is theres something more that you were trying to capture by
>>> changing from ³protocols² to ³mechanisms²?
>>> 
>>>   In addition to what you mentioned, this might allow us to reuse an
>>> existing protocol to do part of this job, even if that protocol could
>>>not
>>> be extended to cover everything we need for BANANA.
>>> 
>>>   Margaret
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 25, 2017, at 3:42 PM, David Allan I
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> HI Margaret
>>>> 
>>>> An aspect that concerns me for a while is the notion that there
>>> will be a single signaling protocol to satisfy a laundry list of
>>> requirements. On first blush this seems to suggest a solution is
>>>already
>>> in the wings that needs the laundry list, or that we will end up with
>>>a
>>> bloated superset god protocol. Neither of which is IMO a totally
>>> desirable outcome.
>>>> 
>>>> Easiest fix for me would be to replace ³a signaling protocol² with
>>> ³mechanisms².
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Dave
>>>> 
>>>> From: Banana [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Margaret
>>>> Cullen
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 12:33 PM
>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Banana] Updated Charter
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> No problem, Philip.  I have included the latest text below.  This
>>> does not yet include the changes I am currently discussing with Dave
>>> Sinicrope.
>>>> 
>>>> Margaret
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Charter: BANdwidth Aggregation for Network Access WG
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> Bandwidth Aggregation consists of splitting local traffic across
>>> multiple Internet links on a per-packet basis, including the ability to
>>> split a single flow across multiple links when necessary.
>>>> 
>>>> It is the goal of this WG to produce a Bandwidth Aggregation
>>> solution that will provide the following benefits:
>>>> 
>>>>    € Higher Per-Flow Bandwidth: Many Internet links available to
>>> homes and small offices (DSL, Cable, LTE, Satellite, VPNs, etc.) have
>>> relatively low bandwidth. Users may wish to run applications (such as
>>> streaming video, or content up/downloads) that require (or could
>>>benefit
>>> from) more bandwidth for a single traffic flow than is available on any
>>> of the local links. A Bandwidth Aggregation solution could supply the
>>> needed bandwidth by splitting a single traffic flow across multiple
>>> Internet links.
>>>>    € Reduced Cost: Traffic sharing on a per-packet basis allows the
>>> full bandwidth of the lowest-cost link to be used first, only using a
>>> higher-cost link when the lowest-cost link is full.
>>>>    € Increased Reliability: When one Internet link goes down, ongoing
>>> application flows can be moved to another link, preventing service
>>> disruption.
>>>> 
>>>> Proposed BANANA solutions use different mechanisms (e.g. tunnels,
>>> proxies, etc.) to split and recombine traffic, but at an abstract
>>>level,
>>> they involve a local (hardware or software) component on the
>>>multi-access
>>> network, a remote component within the Internet or at the remote end,
>>>and
>>> mechanisms for those components to find each other, exchange signalling
>>> information, and direct traffic to each other.   We refer to the
>>> functional components at each end as the Local and Remote ³BANANA
>>>Boxes²,
>>> and we refer to the mechanisms they use to direct traffic to each other
>>> as ³Bandwidth Aggregation mechanisms².
>>>> 
>>>> [Note:  Despite our use of the term ³Boxes², it should be
>>> understood 
>>>> that a ³BANANA Box² might be a software component running on a
>>> piece 
>>>> of hardware with another primary purpose (e.g. a CPE router).]
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> The BANANA WG is chartered to complete the following  work items:
>>>>    € Informally document/discuss BANANA problem statement and usage
>>> scenarios in a non-archival document (e.g. Wiki, Google Doc, etc.)
>>>>    € Determine how Local and Remote BANANA Boxes find each other
>>> (i.e. describe how BANANA boxes will be provisioned/configured.)
>>>>    € Select or specify a signalling protocol that can be used to send
>>> control information between BANANA Boxes, including:
>>>>    € IP Prefixes of access  links
>>>>    € Information about link status and properties (including
>>> congestion)
>>>>    € Information needed by the Bandwidth Aggregation mechanism(s) in
>>> use
>>>>    € Determining which flows are/are not eligible for Bandwidth
>>> Aggregation
>>>>    € Select (and extend, if necessary) a tunneling encapsulation for
>>> sending traffic between BANANA Boxes.
>>>> 
>>>> When applicable, the BANANA WG will use existing IETF protocols, or
>>> extensions to existing IETF protocols, as the basis for the work items
>>> listed above.  When an existing protocol is used, the WG deliverable
>>>will
>>> be a document describing the use of that protocol for Bandwidth
>>> Aggregation and/or a set of options or extensions to an existing IETF
>>> protocol to make it useful for Bandwidth Aggregation.
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> Milestones
>>>>    € Apr 2018 Adopt WG draft for provisioning/configuration mechanism
>>>>    € Apr 2018 Adopt WG draft for signaling protocol
>>>>    € Apr 2018 Adopt WG draft(s) for tunnel encapsulation(s)
>>>>    € Feb 2019 WGLC on provisioning/configuration mechanism
>>>>    € Feb 2019 WGLC on signaling protocol
>>>>    € Feb 2019 WGLC on tunnel encapsulation(s)
>>>>    € Aug 2019 Send provisioning/configuration mechanism to the IESG
>>>>    € Aug 2019 Send signalling protocol to the IESG
>>>>    € Aug 2019 Send tunnel encapsulation(s) to the IESG
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 25, 2017, at 12:37 PM, <[e-mail]>
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Margaret,
>>>> Please could you post the text on the mailing list, as our firewall
>>>> blocks google docs Thanks!
>>>> phil
>>>> 
>>>> From: Banana [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Margaret
>>>> Cullen
>>>> Sent: 22 September 2017 20:19
>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: [Banana] Updated Charter
>>>> 
>>>> I have updated the charter text in an attempt to reflect all of the
>>> feedback to date.  You can find the new version here:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1byOJ_To6eL1ZBxKSYpTafQbngTBiNwxaK7
>>>> ReIsld9Ek/edit
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?  Comments?
>>>> 
>>>> Do folks think this is ready to send to the IESG?  Or are there
>>> other changes that it would make it clearer or better?
>>>> 
>>>> Margaret
>>> 
>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>   Banana mailing list
>>>   [e-mail]
>>>   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/banana
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Banana mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/banana
>>