IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps

Dirk Trossen <dirk.trossen@huawei.com> Tue, 12 April 2022 07:53 UTC

Return-Path: <dirk.trossen@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5FA3A0959; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hWHO8t948bvM; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E15D13A0854; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml702-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KcyZj1LhCz68778; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 15:50:53 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhreml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.56) by fraeml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.51) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 09:53:04 +0200
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) by lhreml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 08:53:03 +0100
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.201.68.196]) by lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.201.68.196]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 08:53:03 +0100
From: Dirk Trossen <dirk.trossen@huawei.com>
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps
Thread-Topic: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps
Thread-Index: AQHYSRD31NQWUQkInkq6ywI/bG25yKzr4qzg
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 07:53:03 +0000
Message-ID: <b2083c1a91ef432c9d5250d31ba71029@huawei.com>
References: <204D8DE6-F51C-4551-B1D7-1D69DBCA3626@hxcore.ol>
In-Reply-To: <204D8DE6-F51C-4551-B1D7-1D69DBCA3626@hxcore.ol>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.202.182.126]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_b2083c1a91ef432c9d5250d31ba71029huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/6AwjLBkqQsuiXTQfxTfFjAkhuIs>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 07:53:13 -0000

Dear all,

I do support the creation of a place where APN and its requirements as well as framework could be worked on.

In line with this support, I also want to point out the linkage to the discussion on ‘routing beyond reachability’ (RBR) and ‘semantic routing’, which were both presented at the recent IETF, in that APN fits the many examples given already for extending the functionality of the Internet’s capabilities beyond a mere reachability, possibly through APN-specific semantic enhancements that may be used for an app-specific traffic steering.

But it also shows, in my view, the need for a wider understanding of how various reachability mechanisms will need to architecturally fit together in order to work together, a point that both aforementioned efforts on RBR and semantic routing tried to make, also working through concerns of complexity raised in this specific APN discussion.

In conclusion, I support the creation of those APN effort but also hope we can make progress on the wider picture.

Best,

Dirk


From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: 05 April 2022 19:15
To: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>rg>; rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>rg>; rtg-ads@ietf.org
Subject: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps

Dear RTGWG,


APN has been presented at RTGWG multiple times, and we see the evolution of the
documents, including the scope of the problem and framework.  This topic needs
collaboration across WGs; we can foresee that not all issues to be addressed are
within the charter of RTGWG and would span beyond the Routing area.

RTGWG is chartered to provide a venue for new work, there are a couple of different options and one option for handling
such new work would be to recommend the development of a new WG.
The Chairs would then want to recommend that the ADs consider forming a focus WG, with a set of well defined deliverables and milestones (after delivery the group would be shut down) to work on a framework for APN.

We would like to solicit the WG for opinions.  Please note that comments about
existing APN documents should be sent to apn@ietf.org<mailto:apn@ietf.org>.  This thread focuses on
support or objection to recommending that the ADs consider the formation of a
new WG.

Please send your comments, support, or objectiond.
Thanks!


Cheers,
Yingzhen  Jeff

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email