Re: [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-eckert-intarea-flow-metadata-framework-01.txt

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Charles, 

Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Charles Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Envoyé : jeudi 18 juillet 2013 22:07
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; Reinaldo Penno (repenno); [e-mail]
>Objet : RE: [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-eckert-
>intarea-flow-metadata-framework-01.txt
>
>Hi Med,
>
>Thank you for your review and corresponding comments. Please see inline.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail]
>> [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 5:11 AM
>> To: Reinaldo Penno (repenno); Charles Eckel (eckelcu); [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-eckert-
>intarea-
>> flow-metadata-framework-01.txt
>>
>> >>
>> >>IMHO, it would be useful if the document elaborates on deployment
>aspects
>> >>and what are the facilitators to ease adoption of such approach. For
>> >>example, why an application relying on HTTPS would sent a non-encrypted
>> >>flow characterization message for analytic purposes? What is the role
>of
>> >>a CPE in such model?
>> >
>> >
>> >[RP] I believe the end-point making the request for flow characteristics
>> >will be the CPE in many cases where the applications is not metadata
>> >aware. In other words, the CPE makes the request on behalf of
>applications.
>> [Med] I'm more interested in this CPE flavor (managed CPE) since it
>avoids
>> relying on applications to benefit from the added value of this approach.
>This
>> is worth be discussed in the document too.
>
>[cue] Agreed. This is what we describe as "Proxy originated information" in
>section 3.1.4.1 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eckert-intarea-flow-
>metadata-framework-01#section-3.1.4.1). Does this address your concern?

[Med] Yes and No. I would prefer if concrete deployment examples are discussed (e.g., managed CPE for instance).