[Coin] Feedback on draft-kutscher-coinrg-dir-02
Xavier de Foy <x.defoy.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 14 September 2020 14:39 UTC
Return-Path: <x.defoy.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: coin@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: coin@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C003A09A4 for <coin@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 07:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 je3BcZFxl3Ky for <coin@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 07:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com (mail-pf1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435]) (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 2FB873A0AA2 for <coin@irtf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 07:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id z19so12798887pfn.8 for <coin@irtf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 07:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3CMQIIoX5FAob/bmfYlfLvnD+2fvKcS/rOMVQD38tmU=; b=j8M5gwWMYyJU9d0Jrau7vuR96xeXJysZRSPZ4LooE39RlKQCTFdie/hdhJIrpS6nf9 vPdr5DNZV7k7B5O7j+B+DoJe5hqDcp+LKbsVH2dEzWPc8bwRvmpmTnhBCjnfLFotL8tg uN7Zg/FGihaRwMMDgINdEpjsgm9a7LJTgDaQfC+sgMktqdVTqDjNF1PApJhtRoD62kiz 3DZLc5Vuj21kmv8lZ8bycChn48g1eoxGePHhYxH+avypebUuPUZZIW16g7x3gBLBYoUd naxlPyvFZXQ2FWSqosBjgvjfc191u5xc5JZx3yveXCl9ltBLAwcLGBZR4zrnKnKUgwA4 3hDQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3CMQIIoX5FAob/bmfYlfLvnD+2fvKcS/rOMVQD38tmU=; b=qMvxkiAKWmBVPdfkaYp4AzbvREwTTKII5y3xsxFTj1ouytugP6xcfWw+WP9ZDWAJ8A wpK48VKF4A7/u8gmWxA3hRDXr6hTkSDZRTu8lIvrM8Pn0baCfp8uH/LHjAAWTPqzjaPk uon6ixG2CGC/N5XD8GNg3dv53Pc+3lSunoSjyo2WwtTbrCWfsmy4ZXhwpnSNCE/6josX G2iSxnxE1Dbd+xcipgG7Y8B2ZW2wLNffNZVY48VFC4xOBWmqtyq+cYIp4ASMxf0qv4qZ uKa3qANKcwWDai6l7zXDDMT5XjUmqn7iH7fKCMFONaNsGMtq1lKXgnDnMP0FOML+Ki2o WbfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530F6AvxucnuUxNRz4YVXO6MZP11ow2+qAMqEY2rVxTx0Q8RGzCz MsWMD9RNAaHR71uwjdTYOc1gxdZoj2Rl+EYlqaM49cEJY3w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwNxBL4bzpfa76eRrlhcxn52Vf99h98PVEpl/vButaLJfiRs7J9UgHAEr9S0oyV+1oYvvdn/XmxqcznJ51NHSE=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:521c:: with SMTP id g28mr3999359pgb.43.1600094349545; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 07:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Xavier de Foy <x.defoy.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:38:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHYjOTYtpRS61Y3eDptLqCagp6+LByEYKO_QVAqujU_yVWbGMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kutscher, Dirk" <ietf@dkutscher.net>, "coin@irtf.org" <coin@irtf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004fdf3805af46ff36"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/coin/ugAuK8LuqdaM1qaXAJfPmXzpUS0>
Subject: [Coin] Feedback on draft-kutscher-coinrg-dir-02
X-BeenThere: coin@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "COIN: Computing in the Network" <coin.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/coin>, <mailto:coin-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/coin/>
List-Post: <mailto:coin@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:coin-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin>, <mailto:coin-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:39:12 -0000
Hi Dirk, Teemu and Joerg, Thank you for publishing the draft "Directions for Computing in the Network". I agree with its content and support its adoption. Here are some comments on revision -02 of the draft, for your consideration. 1. Introduction - The numbered list of in-network computing variants is a great way to introduce the subject, and could even be more explicit (e.g. using subsections) to structure the text below it. (Even if you prefer not to do that, you may want to align the order of the detailed paragraphs with the order of the numbered list). - Microservices paragraph: consider clarifying where this falls in the list of variants ("edge computing"?). Maybe "serverless compute services" platforms such as firecracker may support your point on stateless programs. - (editorial on the whole document): there are a lot of terms that sound similar: "in-network computing", "networked computing", "computing in the network". "in the network", "in-network", "inside the network". In general the document is already pretty clear, but maybe there is still room to improve clarity by reducing the number of those terms, and making sure they are consistent. 2. Terms - Program: is it important that the program is "requested by a user"? For example, could a COIN network perform periodic tasks? If we omit this part of the definition, program and function could both be defined as a set of instructions that can be executed by a computer, and may differ in scope only. - Platform: consider clarifying/expanding "specific host platform" in the definition. - Environment: the relationship between environment and platform could be clarified (if they have a similar meaning, would it be an option to keep only one term?) 3. Computing in the Network vs Networked Computing vs Packet Processing - About: "Here, we try to contrast these existing and widely successful systems (that probably do not require new research) with a more novel ...". Not disagreeing with that, but "(that probably do not require new research)" is a bit controversial. For example, those existing systems could evolve to support some principles from COIN (as one of multiple approaches to COIN). 3.2. Packet Processing - This section appears to include flow processing as well, should this be reflected in the section title? - Wondering if the recent work discussed at IETF 108 on network tokens, APN, PLUS/SPUD (which is mentioned in the charter) would have their place in this section, in the sense that they enable some way to trigger computation on a flow in the network, using signalling at the network or transport layer. By the way, do you think network tokens, APN, PLUS/SPUD should be mentioned in the introduction, within an existing variant or as a new one? - nits: s/the VNFs are places/the VNFs are placed/ - sff reference can be update to rfc 8677 3.3. Computing in the Network - The paragraph on MEC repeats some of what was said in the introduction, and does not discuss its relation to COIN, so the purpose of the paragraph is not clear. - Consider defining computing in the network as explicitly as possible (e.g. network/transport layer involvement in using distributed/multi-domain/decentralized compute/storage, as per the charter), so that we can objectively determine if an approach is in scope of COIN. Then maybe there can be room for evolving existing systems towards COIN, besides the other approach of designing a new COIN system. - A management plane is used for code placement in non-COIN technologies described here (MEC, SDN) in opposition to using the control plane in COIN. Do you think it is an aspect that generally characterizes COIN systems vs. non-COIN systems? - Paragraph "Considering computing ... mechanisms directly.": there may be situations where a managed cloud-like network (e.g. using SDN+NFV) is not feasible or practical. For example: disaster scenarios, high loss/latency environments, heterogeneous environments. This may provide a set of base scenarios justifying developing and using COIN. 4. Examples - Consider introducing the reason why each example is described. For example, it seems CFN already implements some COIN concepts, while Akka may be an example of a candidate technology to integrate with the network/transport layers. 5. Research Challenges - With regards to recent presentations in COINRG, some aspects of data discovery may be relevant to COIN. For example, propagating data discovery information in a COIN network to enable steering computation requests. Another question is how the RG should consider the external interfaces: how will COIN nodes discover data sources which are not COIN nodes? How will end users discover COIN services? Thanks again for preparing this draft, Xavier.
- [Coin] Feedback on draft-kutscher-coinrg-dir-02 Xavier de Foy