[conex] Comments on WGLC comments-draft-ietf-conex-mobile-04

Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com> Tue, 25 November 2014 06:02 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176E91A6FD5 for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:02:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OPFPBZBEaeSW for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x235.google.com (mail-qc0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E18E1A700C for <conex@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:02:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id m20so8105077qcx.12 for <conex@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:02:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ie+AlwtPrTAfUV584Qg3YrrOHV1A/oIZUyKkyh/8LA8=; b=SrPLQ2fgk9B9DkiQi7Tl5uX7dnrnvRKiMIUx93vYz00tvuORMUPpvNJtYhCRymbk6D +7gXwE+JcCKn9qBVMnOK8Pny4YcxaFU3dEz4KQ/E9t90bcknzI+uYetv4kqWhV5j3w6E Lil78dOSVP4FLy02xt7j044R4Uk5v+fYoyFeSnyzddeT54Dpu3mp/ll2wphnsLJZFCLS Co5G4PaHrN4hEsHbnPEYdEXy4KXsZSE2HGIWAABNiiGiv6/c58Lz48Ll9EAk40Ud72fj kXUo4UCHGghnAeS7clnglHF4hOqCW0hy6Y4pAWgVHFbN1zoMlDaOZaIfGPDCkoL2qq2e F1TA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=ie+AlwtPrTAfUV584Qg3YrrOHV1A/oIZUyKkyh/8LA8=; b=Fl7IzwfYgvIYyHoDiYDzPWSiOs2eiKqD6Q6Bvev0aZVXm+es56zaTbfhkFFuU5LJRc kDW2e3paNPLr3O1jTP3cKh4yiKO4eL/kg8VS/4V/JhuOTOOPsS7WcmIgFzo64Xy5Ayai snYT+eg+ZOFDKW6gwEAaByhXDfgWgRb2m9SSASpL6U0aMkHLjc+K3layhAKMXYIzY/SM XdJO4yGkxhUW1S9iishmm3+wYrNxweq2X+gqIfJLWByOzJ0GzJgmtqjPCQUq2gaX2CrU Im4mfN//FQbx5pS7ZpOx/mxMU8SSiZWukwRMX/2e4NDHZktuTHwhPyYt444W8kZC/YG+ 5rnw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlXfrhndKIYfRnYu2NYgIhmWQBCPbkEz3gF1KA5XRvitdeDDjCPix+ZFAacueG+XoktVu0V
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id 74mr20143173qgh.106.1416895346623; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:02:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:02:26 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:02:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CAB_+Fg5yXS9X3oFcVttOkEoqZZmp5PNZgrz33f69EGg6FrX0mg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com>
To: Dirk Kutscher <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu>, faisal.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/v2rc-Sdjl4wiuDmL_tRz28rZjTY
Cc: "conex@ietf.org" <conex@ietf.org>
Subject: [conex] Comments on WGLC comments-draft-ietf-conex-mobile-04
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, 25 Nov 2014 06:02:30 -0000

Thanks! the draft reads so much better than the last version and I had
no difficulty following. A few comments (mostly nits):

* "Given the above, and in the light of the significant increase of
overall data volume in 3G networks, Deep-Packet-Inspection (DPI) is
often considered a desirable function to have in the EPC --
EPC -> EPS (?)
If it is EPC, then expand it as this is the first time it's appearing.

* 2.1.  ConEx as a Basis for Traffic Management
1. It can enable or enhance flow policy-based traffic management.  At
present, DPI-based resource management is often used to prioritize
certain application classes with respect to others in overload

2. It can reduce the need for complex DPI by allowing for a bulk
packet traffic management system that does not have to consider the
application classes flows belong to and individual sessions...
Both 1 and 2 are attempting to use ConEx to be used in place of the
more complex DPI based systems. But I think you are attempting to
enumerate two _different_ ways in which ConEx can be used to reduce
the need for DPI. I understand (1), but (2) is less clear.

Could you in particular either edit the first para of point# 2 above,
to _clearly_ state how it's different from point #1.

* 2.3  Accounting for Congestion Volume

"This would not require any new interface (reference points) at all."
What do you mean by this sentence - reference points?

* 2.4 Partial vs. Full Deployment

About this point: the prior points 2.1 - 2.3 actually adhere to the
title of this Section "ConEx as a Basis for Traffic Management".
Partial versus Full doesn't exactly fill this category. It reads more
about: if ConEx were to be deployed in mobile networks then a partial
deployment also makes sense and a full deployment as such isn't a
necessary condition for sing ConEx.

Is this correct? And if so, should it belong here in this section?

It seems to be that this section would be more apt in Section 3 where
you are already talking about deployment scenarios.

* 3.1.  Possible Deployment Scenarios
Figures 1, 2, 3 have some abbreviations S-GW and P-GW that you don't
really mention in the description. Could you expand these somewhere?
If not necessary, then remove these abbreviations.

* 3.1.  Possible Deployment Scenarios
Figure 4 has some further acronyms not referred to in the text: DL congestion?

* " We consider all three scenarios to be relevant and believe that
all of them are within the scope of the CONEX WG charter.  A more
detailed description will be provided in a future version of this

Remove this? Do we expect a future version of this doc.?

* 3.2.2.  CONEX Functions in the Mobile Network

"In the EPS, per-user information is normally part of the user profile
(stored in the HSS) that would be accessed by PCC entities such as the
PCRF for dynamic updates, enforcement etc."

What is PCC, PCRF, HSS?

* 4. Summary
Shorten the summary. Repetition of text from the main sections, so can
be brief here.
The four classifications are useful.