[Marnew] Marnew reflections

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 24 September 2015 01:12 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: marnew@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marnew@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC33F1B2FF2 for <marnew@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vn6-vlpeD4sA for <marnew@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3CB01B2FF1 for <marnew@iab.org>; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2633; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1443057161; x=1444266761; h=from:subject:to:message-id:date:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=MoMe/uK4XuwS/BQpjlHxuL6xHWe2rURtvZ9jBdjXrZk=; b=ZFdr/fEnESxbU3txaquCZwiFLMj5CGNreLXPL1nCtxzPxeFI9XiIGghb A/K0uSz9GVG8IjStz+FJmjiYAdtWExbl8TvxPtHxIlUU9slyuXC2vQ5lt 3kRkU1u2HrBwcK3arznrBAjtYI9hNoDfw86k51/ddVpjleMo6xPoElM1N c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BeBQDLTANW/5JdJa1dgyRUaQGDKbo/gXqHQjkTAQEBAQEBAYEKhE4VMg42AgUUAgsCCwMCAQIBWAgBAReIEw2nQo9qlGOBIoVRiTF3glKBQwEElWd4hBqHeYFPRoZuI5IEIwI+gUqCOTw0iCOBSAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,579,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="35010500"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2015 01:12:40 +0000
Received: from [10.82.214.170] (rtp-vpn4-1706.cisco.com [10.82.214.170]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t8O1CcP1004322 for <marnew@iab.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 01:12:38 GMT
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: marnew@iab.org
Message-ID: <56034E06.7080505@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 03:12:38 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/marnew/HxUD9-VXjSJcwSA7gHOKN9tGT8Q>
Subject: [Marnew] Marnew reflections
X-BeenThere: marnew@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Managing Radio Networks in an Encrypted World <marnew.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/marnew>, <mailto:marnew-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/marnew/>
List-Post: <mailto:marnew@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marnew-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/marnew>, <mailto:marnew-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 01:12:41 -0000

Dear all,

With a long flight, I've been having some time to think about MARNEW, 
and read some papers.
So here is a list of questions and reflections in preparation for the 
workshop.

- My first point is: what is specific to radio networks? 
Fluctuating/unknown bandwidth, limited cellular capacity, maybe more 
caching? IMO, the problem space is not specific to radio networks, 
specifically if we have QoE in mind. We can think of it as "Managing 
Networks in an Encrypted World". I would be happy to learn about the 
radio network specifics during the workshop.

- Clarifying question: Is this workshop focusing on encrypted web 
traffic only, or all traffic/applications encryption?

- IMO, there are three aspects to encryption:
1. As an end user, I want privacy
2. As an employee, I require privacy, but I also require the right QoE 
for my business applications
3. As an operator, I'm not interested to look at the unencrypted 
packets, but I need to manage the networks. Everybody blames the network 
(even if it's not the network, but the servers ... but that's a 
different story). One aspect to provide the right QoE/QoS has been DPI. 
With the increase of encryption, that will not be a solution any longer.

- In terms of mechanism to provide the right QoS/QoE, there are two ways:
1. the operator is able to deduce the information. This is the DPI 
story. With encryption, that will be a challenge as mentioned.
2. the end-user communicate its QoS requirements to the network. Ex: hey 
mister operator, treat this series of packets (and I won't tell the 
content) as real-time traffic.

- Here we have a series of questions wrt the end-user communicating its 
requirements to the network.
     - QoE/QoS per device, per user, per session, per flow, per 
applications? Per application I guess, potentially per flow.
     - Do the end users know what they need in terms of QoS parameters: 
delay, packet loss, delay variation? Not sure...
       Maybe the applications know, but won't they all the time require 
the best QoS
     - DSCP has not been used appropriately. Why would it work this 
time? We could link this to some dollars: hey mister operator, treat 
this series of packets as real-time traffic, and I will pay extra for 
this. However, a complex billing system is ... costly.

- All these problems were discussed part of Application Enabled 
Collaborative Network (AECON).
However, that BoF was not approved at IETF 90. See 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/BofIETF90 and review the 
description. There are some similarities.

Regards, Benoit