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

[Hitoshi Asaeda <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Sorry for the late response.
I have no concern about moving this forward, yet suggest to consider one thing.

For the effective use of in-network cache, network coding is also helpful to improve the data transmission quality. I therefore recommend to add some statement explaining the way of its use or adoption with some references already discussing the advantages (or even difficulties) for ICN. 

Regards,

Hitoshi



> On Feb 11, 2020, at 20:00, Dirk Kutscher <[e-mail]> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Colin Perkins
>> https://csperkins.org/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> icnrg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg