Re: [icnrg] I-D Action: draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05.txt

"David R. Oran" <> Wed, 26 August 2020 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93FFF3A152C for <>; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 07:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fSNf-tKrWdXm for <>; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 07:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:fca8:1530::c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D51FF3A1564 for <>; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 07:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([IPv6:2601:184:407f:80ce:f59f:e2fd:9d2b:1676]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id 07QEbVhd026457 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 07:37:33 -0700
From: "David R. Oran" <>
To: "Akbar Rahman" <>
Cc: "Kutscher, Dirk" <>,
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 10:37:25 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5708)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] I-D Action: draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 14:37:48 -0000

On 26 Aug 2020, at 10:23, Akbar Rahman wrote:

> Hi Dirk/Dave,
> I had read it a while ago, and have just re-read it now.  Overall, a 
> very nice draft and I support progressing it.
> Just two suggestions for editorial clarification:
> - "TCP/IP" is referred to in various sections, and then afterwards the 
> "IP protocol stack" is mentioned once in section 3.2.  Wouldn't it be 
> better to use "IP protocol stack" as the generic reference instead of 
> "TCP/IP".  This is because one is never sure if by "TCP/IP" you also 
> mean to include UDP or not?  And now with the rolling out of QUIC/HTTP 
> (which is UDP based) this distinction becomes more important.  This 
> can become a minor or major point of confusion depending on the 
> reader's background.  I've gotten this feedback myself on other drafts 
> that I have written.
I haven’t encountered this problem, especially as I’m using it in a 
mostly historical context, but I get the point. I’m not sure 
“stack” is the right word either, since I definitely am not talking 
about anything at the application layer, like HTTP, SMTP, I’ll 
give this some thought and if I can excise the explicit “TCP” 
reference without getting too wordy e.g. (“Internet and transport 
layer protocols”), or just get away with “IP”, I will make the 

> - Is it wise to entitle section 7.7 as "Strawman principles for an ICN 
> QoS architecture" since strawman usually has a negative implication 
> ( ) ?
…which is intentional in the sense that they are loose principles, for 
possible replacement in a “real” architecture, and may fall over if 
pushed even moderately hard. I’m happy to keep this connotation to 
ensure people approach this with the right degree of skepticism.

Thanks for the comments!

> /Akbar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: icnrg <> On Behalf Of Dirk Kutscher
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 5:07 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [icnrg] I-D Action: draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05.txt
> Hello ICNRG,
> Dave has kindly updated the QoS Architecture Considerations draft, 
> responding to earlier comments from Eve during IRSG review.
> I was wondering what people think of this revision. Check out the diff 
> to see the changes.
> If we are generally happy with it, I'd like to pass it back to the 
> IRSG on Monday, August 31st.
> As a reminder, this is an individual submission, not a RG document as 
> most of our RFCs-to-be. Still, any feedback would be appreciated, of 
> course.
> Thanks,
> Dirk
> On 24 Aug 2020, at 20:31, wrote:
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Information-Centric Networking RG of
>> the IRTF.
>>         Title           : Considerations in the development of a QoS
>> Architecture for CCNx-like ICN protocols
>>         Author          : Dave Oran
>> Filename        : draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05.txt
>> Pages           : 28
>> Date            : 2020-08-24
>> 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 in addition to memory, CPU
>> and
>>    link bandwidth as a resource 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.
>>    This document is not a product of the IRTF Information-Centric
>>    Networking Research Group (ICNRG) but has been through formal last
>>    call and has the support of the participants in the research group
>>    for publication as an individual submission.
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> _______________________________________________
>> icnrg mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list
> [Banner]
> [Banner]<>
> ABI - Cloud Gaming: Enabling a Next Generation Gaming and Streaming 
> Paradigm<>
> This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity 
> to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is 
> privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to 
> anyone other than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission 
> shall not constitute waiver of any privilege or confidentiality 
> obligation. If you received this communication in error, please do not 
> review, copy or distribute it, notify me immediately by email, and 
> delete the original message and any attachments. Unless expressly 
> stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message or any attachment 
> should be construed as a digital or electronic signature.
> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list