Re: [icnrg] [irsg] IRSG ballot closed: <draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-08.txt> to Informational RFC
Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Mon, 12 October 2020 19:40 UTC
Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Original-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036B53A07DB; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=csperkins.org
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 LyrtkCh3xznI; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4295E3A07B0; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=csperkins.org; s=mythic-beasts-k1; h=To:Date:From:Subject; bh=Uss56BIjm8klWpJP8s2astV5awsbmLy4vZeGRnZc2jI=; b=DP7C1YJTUWILsrwxbShBdiY0xz tdCrfrU4w3i2o3HTWd92rO9xBp2/GbVb9e/BlZuujSVFnWKhrEGqJNOjB39ak8/rbMnVz7pH3j+pv OmVBp5Bhgpag2sM63xZYBV06dxENIWP1uSt7nzp6nRyj4crdUkWoYNVrHazRfv/Sf3JzxAG4IOPtu 8psTysNYA7VIbZvHSUnDmIriAJnHT4y35nOa85+HQqA417hdxmUGXFpVGGjzwu1LpkPbExRvWFK82 sb+jdUxwiN43iC1u1OzP1Dp3htOSlb4hnQwNjQNL/SIBoGYGEbWAYP4N8oV8km4Agp2AoiSLHeMGa 3ARRX6dw==;
Received: from [81.187.2.149] (port=39198 helo=[192.168.0.67]) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1kS3gM-0007FU-81; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 20:40:30 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <160250611383.2096.13975783458057289320@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 20:40:27 +0100
Cc: draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g@ietf.org, ICNRG <icnrg@irtf.org>, icnrg-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <10377AB3-BC5D-47AC-91F1-E300623E1313@csperkins.org>
References: <160250611383.2096.13975783458057289320@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: The IRSG <irsg@irtf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/3MtGZQuDuFrxlpvq2AxafZdy8OI>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] [irsg] IRSG ballot closed: <draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-08.txt> to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: icnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <icnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/icnrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:icnrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:40:34 -0000
> On 12 Oct 2020, at 13:35, IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote: > > The IRSG ballot for <draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-08.txt> has been closed. The evaluation for this document can be found at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g/ Apologies for the slow progress with this draft. Having reviewed the ballot results and discussion, I’d suggest that there are two concerns. The first is that the research contribution, and the experiments to be conducted, could be more clearly described. It would seem reasonable for the RG to experiment with running ICN protocols in different environments and over different link layers, to describe the systems and protocols being used in those experiments, and to document the goals of any such experiments, their results, and any lessons learned. However, it must be careful not to write drafts that can be interpreted as straying into the standards space. I understood some of the IRSG review comments as suggesting that this draft has got that balance wrong, and can be viewed as describing an approach to deploying ICN protocols in LTE networks, rather than documenting an experimental prototype to help us understand whether ICN protocols are deployable in that environment and what are the implications of doing so. Similar concerns may apply to other ICN-over-X documents. Secondly, Shivan’s comments about privacy aspects are also important to consider. This draft should further characterise the privacy concerns and highlight any LTE-specific privacy implications of using ICN protocols. The group might also then consider if there’s scope for new work, and potentially new drafts, to more actively explore the privacy considerations of ICN protocols. Regards, Colin
- [icnrg] IRSG ballot closed: <draft-irtf-icnrg-icn… IESG Secretary
- Re: [icnrg] [irsg] IRSG ballot closed: <draft-irt… Colin Perkins