Re: [conex] Comments on draft-ietf-conex-mobile-03

Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com> Tue, 22 July 2014 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <nanditad@google.com>
X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE6441B2845 for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.38
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 EvaH_sQud4ae for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22d.google.com (mail-oi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2958B1B2828 for <conex@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-f45.google.com with SMTP id e131so119799oig.32 for <conex@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9ExWLUUd9Vr9RAFK8iYeYGoUEMmMOiIN7AeD23q9saY=; b=mtl+y9hTH5EkRGXHuBSxrie8LFuu3v+uCz0eVm+h2EMR0fMoJl/jzjhpRi1jFHuF5f Ls6ZBDq7DMaoP2k/gyvcxLJ4UEsWzf7MTMsdWWovVEICpICbt4axC2RfHCZEtvmgnP7v FFYzJ6lrjZsB8VqA8zssUQpujc/56b44/LKqq+qbiDb/Ou09ivKmMK+TxqbsQqP7af6d 2FttQfWeLtJxWgDX7JmjnDO6jdUH9vE0HUw7sXtlqsfXHWjk7UHaRSJgEKWPsJPIcT5n +Rork7jzaweRO9/C7CoJWTsedY3pWlZeVmFofYj+QsDBBkm0Oou3hwa/e/xmGsylUJd+ YJGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9ExWLUUd9Vr9RAFK8iYeYGoUEMmMOiIN7AeD23q9saY=; b=ZAQG0EdlpamvjfquVpgaxSGp/dX5ZgDI4gRXGGcqL8xLWcTVPKK1z5su7xOW/jxLJY DLr7yfpejn+91uk5+FfVuJyJ7K2R5OjwToSBRrHGPK43i2QtUCMaFO3HD+QFmfjdLuRK cWZphn+P3BeuNT1KKiqK4qZ7+iNkiukOL0fkDcAEV9Fix5pgW8jX5h0bP2BTPXUdpeQS nGvCDUTXy962dsL3ruWAdnjNvrX3GmQR7eygCMK17DQlf5tcnw77o+wa5D9e8PiQPSNz oXs1zWCqJ4XskDki9u3+nLPV2+nJ/tiAl+S35jly9NpLhb728Sdy2StANtWzQVez+1v5 Jr+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlNw2L3oczBbu5qt2ZsFLaxyQOeWcNhiGQxVQgPim+rtQ0BX7wyp/WJCXoyOl92OXjgsfCU
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.52.226 with SMTP id w2mr52100705oeo.3.1406059518353; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.127.20 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAB_+Fg5SZtVEec30Qu-sYwvHQzcQ-_YV2MA1_np5=4EWgELK5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB_+Fg5SZtVEec30Qu-sYwvHQzcQ-_YV2MA1_np5=4EWgELK5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:05:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB_+Fg7G-W5dUBThqS_0e7f8EX2_JYej9jmF9GZXvgub3+__Ng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com>
To: Dirk Kutscher <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu>, Faisal-Ghias Mir <Faisal-Ghias.Mir@neclab.eu>, Rolf Winter <Rolf.Winter@neclab.eu>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, Ying Zhang <ying.zhang@ericsson.com>, cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/CtHEGo8bPZxhpXJ8W8sZUtixr-E
Cc: "conex@ietf.org" <conex@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [conex] Comments on draft-ietf-conex-mobile-03
X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list <conex.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/conex/>
List-Post: <mailto:conex@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:05:20 -0000

Continuing with some more comments...

Section 2 is ConEx use cases in Mobile Communication Networks, while
Section 3 is ConEx in EPS. Isn't ConEx in EPS also a part of the
mobile communication networks?
I am not getting it: what did you intend to be the key difference
between Sections 2 and 3.

As such my comment for Section 3 is same as below for Section 2:
explain the problem, and then lay out the ConEx based
solution/architecture.

Nandita

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com> wrote:
> (as individual contributor).
>
> Still reading, but wanted to pass on comments on early part of the draft.
>
> Introduction
>
> * The second para describing measurements in cellular networks: is
> there a reference to the data?
>
> Section 2.1 ConEx as a basis for Traffic Management
>
> * The second para goes into great details on QoS requirements in EPS,
> radio bearers etc... but you lost me: what is the point you want to
> make?
>
> * On reading further into Section 2.1, I am just not getting the high
> order point you want to make here. The text switches back and forth
> between explaining the current state in mobile networks (DPI etc.),
> and that ConEx can be useful.
>
> Instead, I suggest the following: separate out the two. First clearly
> explain the traffic management problem in cellular networks. Then go
> on with the specifics on how ConEx can be used to address the problems
> laid out.
>
> I think the above split will save the readers a lot of time in trying
> to parse through Sec. 2.1
>
> Further, the usefulness of ConEx is referred to in very high level
> terms with little details. Going a step further and specifying some
> level of detail as to how ConEx might exactly work in mobile will be
> useful.
>
> Nandita