Re: [icnrg] Last Call: draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Tue, 11 February 2020 22:31 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 D4488120825 for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:31:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_SBL=0.5, URIBL_SBL_A=0.1] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 H3xmKzFB2-pj for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com (balrog.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (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 28FE1120180 for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [81.187.2.149] (port=41159 helo=[192.168.0.66]) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1j1e3V-0001BH-C4; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:31:01 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <56D947E2-9A9F-4B93-A2FC-70A53BB7466C@dkutscher.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:30:55 +0000
Cc: ICNRG <icnrg@irtf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B9B95E29-57D1-485F-A233-39623B13854C@csperkins.org>
References: <E35749ED-CFB8-4352-BE66-724BC2C49B64@dkutscher.net> <9BCFBA67-509A-41BD-8351-334AF844C5F5@csperkins.org> <56D947E2-9A9F-4B93-A2FC-70A53BB7466C@dkutscher.net>
To: Dirk Kutscher <ietf@dkutscher.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/98oZ1gJcRrQgreFq5N7O1Ol98VI>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] Last Call: draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch
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: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:31:05 -0000

Sounds good – thanks!
Colin



> On 11 Feb 2020, at 11:00, Dirk Kutscher <ietf@dkutscher.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Colin.
> 
>> I think it’s reasonable to publish this as a position paper, provided the RG is okay with that, but would it be possible to add a few words to the Introduction to explain why the ICN RG thinks this is best published as a position paper? (To be clear that the points in RFC 5743 Section 2.1 are explicitly addressed)
> 
> Yes, let’s do that. I will draft some lines from an ICNRG perspective that Dave could consider including here.
> 
>> Also, the short title (“ICN QoS Architecture”) on each page can be read as perhaps implying a stronger status than intended. Is there space to change it to something like “Proposed ICN QoS Architecture” instead?
> 
> Yes, good point. Dave already noted that “ICN QoS Architecture Considerations” (or something in that direction) is more appropriate and will change the draft accordingly.
> 
> Again, the last call period for this draft is over. If people have other comments, please share them now. We will move to IRSG review when the new version is ready.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dirk
> 
> 
> 
>> Colin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> We (Dave as the author, and Börje & myself as chairs) think that the draft is useful and mature enough so that we can move it towards publication, and I would therefore like to last-call it. Please read it and let us know if you think there are issues. The last call ends on February 7th, i.e., 2.5 weeks from today.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch/
>>> 
>>> Abstract
>>> 
>>>  This is a position paper.  It documents the author's personal views
>>>  on how Quality of Service (QoS) capabilities ought to be accommodated
>>>  in ICN protocols like CCNx or NDN which employ flow-balanced
>>>  Interest/Data exchanges and hop-by-hop forwarding state as their
>>>  fundamental machinery.  It argues that such protocols demand a
>>>  substantially different approach to QoS from that taken in TCP/IP,
>>>  and proposes specific design patterns to achieve both classification
>>>  and differentiated QoS treatment on both a flow and aggregate basis.
>>>  It also considers the effect of caches as a resource in addition to
>>>  memory, CPU and link bandwidth that should be subject to explicitly
>>>  unfair resource allocation.  The proposed methods are intended to
>>>  operate purely at the network layer, providing the primitives needed
>>>  to achieve both transport and higher layer QoS objectives.  It
>>>  explicitly excludes any discussion of Quality of Experience (QoE)
>>>  which can only be assessed and controlled at the application layer or
>>>  above.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Dirk
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> icnrg mailing list
>>> icnrg@irtf.org
>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Colin Perkins
>> https://csperkins.org/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> icnrg mailing list
>> icnrg@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg



-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/