Re: [Int-area] [DMM] New draft posted: Anchorless mobility management through hICN (hICN-AMM): Deployment options

["Giovanna Carofiglio (gcarofig)" <[e-mail]>]

Tom,


the document does not describe nor rely on a specific transport protocol exactly because the discussion on transport protocols is out of scope for Internet Area/DMM.


We have tried to disantangle in the document the benefits of the class of ID-based approaches and the additional ones of hICN within that class. For hICN we have pointed out the desirable requirements in terms of transport layer (request/reply, connectionless, multipath, capable of source discovery etc) sand have distinguished the benefits resulting from the core capability of hICN to route/forward packets on location-independent identifiers with hop-by-hop dynamic forwarding etc (a.k.a. in the ICN way) from those additionally provided by a flexible transport layer building on ICN principles.


Giovanna


________________________________
From: Int-area <[e-mail]> on behalf of Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 11:55 PM
To: Luca Muscariello
Cc: int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [DMM] New draft posted: Anchorless mobility management through hICN (hICN-AMM): Deployment options



On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Luca Muscariello <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
As of now, we do not intend to standardise anything.
The intended status for this draft is informational as indicated.

The system described in the draft has actually been around for quite a while at the IRTF.
It might appear of immense scope and novelty to you as you might not be aware about the
work done at the IRTF on this topic.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxsemantics/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/icnrg/documents/

ccnx draft are going to IRSG for final approval poll soon and is good starting point if you're interested.

On the other hand hICN is an IPv6 forwarding pipeline that realises CCN semantics in IPv6
and that is how it is indented to be  analysed in this scope.

When I read the charter of this WG it seems it couldn't be a better fit.
And BTW I have been invited by other list members to share this information about the topic
in this list. So I did.

The Internet Area Working Group (INTAREA WG) acts primarily as a forum for discussing far-ranging topics that affect the entire area. Such topics include, for instance, address space issues, basic IP layer functionality, and architectural questions. The group also serves as a forum to distribute information about ongoing activities in the area, create a shared understanding of the challenges and goals for the area, and to enable coordination. [...]

Luca,

No where in the int-area charter do I see that transport protocols are in scope. Transport protocols are the domain of transport area. Architectural questions, like whether intermediate devices should be participating in the transport layer protocols or even parsing E2E transport protocols, or whether it's acceptable to create new IP protocol that only works with select transport protocols, might be reasonable questions to pose in int-area I would think.

Tom



Luca

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:38 PM Tom Herbert <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Luca Muscariello <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
IMHO, there's no such a thing as a wrong question. But you can always ask another one.
And BTW, I answered already to one of the questions you redo.  Yes, there will be another draft on transport.
It is not ready but I can have a technical report right before the IETF week and I might give a presentation
at the next ICNRG meeting. That is out of scope for this list I think.

Yes, it is out of scope for this list. If the intent is to standardize a new transport protocol then that obviously needs to be done in transport area. Honestly, given the immense scope and novelty of what hICN is attempting to do, I have to wonder if this work is better to be done in IRTF.

Tom