Re: [Int-area] Per-Application Networking Considerations

["Luis M. Contreras" <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I have gone through the document and I would like to share some comments
on it.

.- Introduction / regarding the examples provided: These cases could not
have the same regulatory treatment. This is an important consideration
because there could be limitations in some cases/situations.

.- Specifically regarding the zero rating example: In my view this is more
administrative than technical, in the sense that the networking behavior
does not change. It is only a matter of OSS/BSS to account that traffic as
chargeable or not.

.- Introduction / “Thus, if an application is to receive different
treatment, the host or the application itself should be involved in
requesting specific network treatment”: This has different implications.
For instance, if the application itself takes the decision without
knowledge/approval of the user, it could impact / interfere in other
applications in the same device / access line. How this potential problem
can be controlled?

.- Section 2 / in the 1st paragraph you provide the idea of applications
requesting and obtaining particular treatment: (1) how do you foresee the
application requesting differentiation?; and (2) how such differentiation
is verified?. Probably good to dig into for the different mechanisms
listed, but also for whatever new that could be defined from this effort.
Additionally, the applications could have other mechanisms in place such as
congestion control. Maybe necessary to differentiate effects from some
mechanisms and the ohers (and/or to see how to gracefully coordinate them).

.- Section 3 / “In a situation where the network operator has influence on
the   implementation of the user host”: To be fair, probably the same
comment should be made with respect to the operating systems on the devices
(for instance, with respect to congestion control mechanisms implemented).

.- Section 3 / “… by ensuring that the mechanism used to communicate
requests to the network only specifies traffic classes and not individual
applications.”: This is important. The actual model, based on best effort
and/or overprovisioning does not scale. Having view of traffic classes is
great, but not all the applications can be high-priority. Somehow there
should be some capacity (quota?) allocated per traffic class. But again it
could be the case that such capacity is exhausted. What happens then? I
mean, there are two points to discuss: (1) interchange information for
assisting on stable situations, and (2) how to handle congestion because
e.g. network failures, sudden demands, or even over-prioritization from the
applications.

.- Section 4 / reference to “appropriate policies” in the 1st paragraph:
The policies are implemented based on identifiers, e.g. origin-destination,
labels, etc. Now new kind of policies could be required based on the class
of service (so the “identifier” would be now the class of service, not the
application itself, due to privacy and other concerns described later).

.- Section 4 / “… instead of the application originating the traffic” & “…
specify general    categories ”: The same should be required in the host or
device.

.- Section 5 / regarding categories of traffic that “… need to be
sufficiently broad … ”: The broader, the less informative would be. The
risk is to give room to (mis)interpretations. A proper balance of
prescription and description is needed to ensure the expected behavior in
the network.

.- Section 6 / “if the host's user is informed that particular applications
are seeking or designated for particular treatment and consents to it.”:
This can only be done by the application. The operating system of the
device does not necessarily knows what is the treatment required by a given
application.
Maybe would be necessary to distinguish what should/must/can be done by the
application, the host/device, and the network

.- Section 7 / “Any API should not involve revealing an application or user
identity to the network via metadata without network authentication.”: This
could be problematic for charging purposes in e.g. wholesale scenarios.

.- Section 7 / “"this is my application identifier "”: however in the
sentence before you refer to “my app” anyway.

Thanks

Luis

El mar, 17 nov 2020 a las 5:22, Tommy Pauly (<tpauly=
[e-mail]>) escribió:

> Hello INTAREA,
>
> We published a draft this week that we’d like to briefly introduce for
> discussion within the intarea WG, draft-per-app-networking-considerations.
> This is an informational document that discusses the implications of a
> trend we’ve noticed towards putting more application identifiers or
> per-application logic in the network layers. Many different proposals touch
> on the idea of differentiating traffic based on application, but we believe
> it would be useful to have a general statement about the privacy trade-offs
> and design considerations in this space. Moreover, we think that a broad
> technical group like intarea may be the right place to discuss and review
> this work.
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-per-app-networking-considerations-00.html
>
> Your reviews and thoughts are appreciated!
>
> Best,
> Tommy & Lorenzo
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *[e-mail]
> *Subject: **New Version Notification for
> draft-per-app-networking-considerations-00.txt*
> *Date: *November 15, 2020 at 8:02:12 PM PST
> *To: *Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>, Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-per-app-networking-considerations-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Tommy Pauly and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-per-app-networking-considerations
> Revision: 00
> Title: Per-Application Networking Considerations
> Document date: 2020-11-15
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 7
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-per-app-networking-considerations-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-per-app-networking-considerations/
> Html:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-per-app-networking-considerations-00.html
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-per-app-networking-considerations-00
>
>
> Abstract:
>   This document describes considerations for and implications of using
>   application identifiers as a method of differentiating traffic on
>   networks.  Specifically, it discusses privacy considerations,
>   possible mitigations, and considerations for user experience and API
>   design.
>
> Discussion Venues
>
>   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
>
>   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
>   https://github.com/tfpauly/per-app-networking-considerations.
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>


-- 
___________________________________________
Luis M. Contreras
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Global CTIO unit / Telefonica