Re: [Can] Martin Duke's Block on charter-ietf-can-00-03: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Agree with John's conclusion that it is not necessary to bake the limitation into the charter. The reason I said "considering accessing public clouds is not wise" is due to today's access to public clouds are proprietary. Maybe future is different.

With Regard to Martin's comment  on "s/The IETF has done past work on exposing network conditions to endpoints (notably ALTO)/":  ALTO charter says that ALTO is to devise a request/response protocol to allow a host to choose optimal paths to resources from a server with more knowledge of the network. While as CAN is to chartered to consider the problem of how the network edge can steer traffic between clients of a service and sites offering the service.

Best regards, Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: Can <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of John Scudder
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 6:36 PM
To: Martin Duke <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Can] Martin Duke's Block on charter-ietf-can-00-03: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

Hi Martin and all,

> On Feb 13, 2023, at 5:22 PM, Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> BLOCK:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Is cross-domain routing in scope, or is this charter limited to
> steering within a certain provider's network?

As best I can recall, the closest we've gotten to discussing this on the CAN list is Linda's question (https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fcan%2FcJZT1kajQu0yvpebFTwHANF1_Is%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C3f27a5212b8442f2903208db0e23778d%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638119317740822794%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1UyVIbYbkCWq1Nx5j6HzNXbTRH1kdiUq7%2FiVo1FgYwo%3D&reserved=0), "Making CAN applicable to access public clouds might not be wise. Maybe we should add this point to the CAN scope?" My summary of the ensuing discussion was (https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fcan%2F0oSNHWD82ERqNIHDYmJ82N6yFdQ%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C3f27a5212b8442f2903208db0e23778d%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638119317740822794%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2pz8QV6RfT34Z52WQEap63YxjfaMtMWEfbYgh7VuXyU%3D&reserved=0) "There was some discussion of whether the scope should be limited by charter to exclude (for example) public clouds. I don't think the consensus supported adding this restriction."

However, I don't think this is exactly the same as the question Martin asked. I take Linda's question to have been related to whether CAN exposes steering services to external clients. I take Martin's question to relate to whether CAN services might be provided by more than one provider, and over what mix of infrastructure.

I suspect the answer is, "probably not and we don't expect to focus on anything other than the single-provider case, but we don't see a need to bake that restriction into the charter". However, this is only my guess and I would like to see the question discussed by the participants. One might also observe that if you accept my premise, even if we don't *need* to bake the restriction into the charter, practically speaking doing so costs us very little and even helps focus the discussion a bit. And of course, if the restriction proves onerous in the future... WGs can be rechartered.

Thanks,

-John
--
Can mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcan&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C3f27a5212b8442f2903208db0e23778d%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638119317740822794%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BedpsK1I%2BRstNPsx2A10nzq8eFfNVjhLfiLuHP0eGQU%3D&reserved=0