Chunshan, Thanks for your input. I support Qin's comments.
I will also say that exploring these sorts of possibilities are the domain of the IRTF -- the IETF works where organizations are ready to deploy an architecture and just need the details to be worked out. ALTO is *not* the working group for all application/network communication -- it is the working group to develop and maintain an HTTP-based protocol to acquire long-lived network parameters. PANRG exists to tackle research questions in the broader space, where the community doesn't believe there is a fully formed consensus on how to fix the big problems. If 3GPP won't send a Liaison Statement, that tells me they are not yet convinced that ALTO is a solution to their problem. This tells me that there needs to be a proof of concept and/or some experiments to convince the industry*. *After that persuasion has happened, it is a good time to consider major standards activity. On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 6:58 AM chunshxiong(熊春山) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Qin, > > Thanks for the feedback! > > > Regarding to the recharter proposal, we attended the discussion quite long > time (though quite a lot are not the WG level but within design team). The > bullet you referenced indeed in our view is just for information and may not > end up with a WG document. So this is indeed not our expectation:-) > > > o Report back to the Area Director to identify any use cases that have strong > support and a realistic chance of implementation and deployment. > > > So, regarding to your proposal to spit into different documents, thanks for > the proposal but we will evaluate and discuss within design team and decide > whether to continue. > > > Meanwhile, for coordination between 3GPP and IETF, indeed there is official > LSes always between these two SDOs, but the LS normally is based on the > progress on standards work related to each other. The ongoing 3GPP R-18 new > study/work item selection sees great interest in ( interactive) application > network coordination for different kinds of companies. If IETF ALTO does not > continue to study the new protocol to support the new services, even if 3GPP > sends LS to IETF, we may not be able to address it properly. > > In 3GPP Rel-17, 44 companies from global area support advanced interactive > services related work ranked as high priority topic during work item > prioritization. From a service provider perspective, it is also very clear > to us how important it is to optimize the user experiences for such important > and popular scenarios like cloud gaming etc. It is really a pity that some > of the interested companies may not come to IETF but it really doesn’t mean > such use case are not dominant. In future we can consider to ask more > companies to come to IETF or ask their 3GPP team to align with IETF team:-) > Regarding to new wheels, we think there is very clear spit/boundary between > 3GPP and IETF thus such cases can probably be avoided easily. Anyway, this > is something in the future and we can come to IETF when proper. > > > So, again thanks for Qin’s response and we do hope ALTO is actually > addressing how state-of -the-art dominating application and network can > coordinate to improve user experiences. > > Thanks a lot! > > BRs, > > > > Chunshan Xiong > > > > *From:* Qin Wu <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:14 PM > *To:* chunshxiong(熊春山) <[email protected]>; IETF ALTO <[email protected] > > > *Cc:* [email protected]; Zaheduzzaman Sarker < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [alto] WG Review: ALTO Charter Update(Internet mail) > > > > Thanks Chunshan for your input and comments on charter proposal, see reply > inline. > > *发件人:* chunshxiong(熊春山) [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] > *发送时间:* 2021年5月11日 16:40 > *收件人:* Qin Wu <[email protected]>; IETF ALTO <[email protected]> > *抄送:* [email protected]; Zaheduzzaman Sarker < > [email protected]> > *主题:* RE: [alto] WG Review: ALTO Charter Update(Internet mail) > > > > Hello WuQin and working group, > > > > I provide our views on this recharter. > > > > Firstly, we think ALTO is an IETF WG to standardize the interaction > between application and network, initially for P2P application and now it > is a good chance to continue optimization to support these new interactive > services like Cloud Gaming, XR/AR, V2X application etc. > > [Qin]: I agree to support further evolving of ALTO protocol. > > To support new application and introduce further optimization for ALTO > protocol, we need to get more implementation deployment and experience to > help us better understand which piece works, which pieces not needed, which > pieces need to be redesigned. ALTO protocol is initial designed for P2P, > later on CDN application, it is generic protocol, Do we have P2P specific > features that need to peel off? To get this question answer, we propose the > first work item and the second item and will create wiki page to keep track > of related concern/issues/report > > > > Secondly, we have been working together with colleagues from network > operator, network vendor and academy et. al. for quite long to perform > ALTO-oriented research and also real network testing which have already > show very clear benefits and we contribute MoWIE to this WG （ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huang-alto-mowie-for-network-aware-app/). > We think the listed items, i.e. the generic protocol extension for policy > attributer, proposed as the high priority for recharter proposal in > IETF#110 ALTO shows rough consensus to some extent. If ALTO WG doesn't > continue these topics explicitly, it is very regretful and we really feel > disappointed about this. > > > > [Qin]: Please see the latest charter proposal, last work item we proposed > based on list discussion > > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/alto/wiki/v0.5-recharter > > o Report back to the Area Director to identify any use cases that have > strong support and a realistic chance of implementation and deployment. > > New use cases documentation is encouraged, especially the use cases for > new emerging applications as you mentioned, AR, VR, Cloud gaming, which > have strong support. > > For MOWIE, I think the same question applies here, i.e., which part are > research based, while which part are not, > > thanks for sharing 3GPP activity on Network Capability Exposure, I think > this is something related to what ALTO can do. > > We need to better document these requirements and use cases from other > SDO, I would suggest to split MOWIE into three document, > > 1. Use Case Document > > 2. Requirements Document > > 3. Implementation report > > The requirements Document will summarize the general requirement from each > use cases. These requirements also require endorsement from some standard > body such as 3GPP. > > Implementation report, we have many good example for implementation report > such as > > https://www.ietf.org/how/runningcode/implementation-reports/ > > https://www6.ietf.org/iesg/implementation/report-rfc2329.txt > > RFC2329 provide a good example for OSPF implementation report. We need a > similar report for ALTO protocol. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5657 > > RFC5657 even provide Guidance on Interoperation and Implementation Reports > > > > Thirdly, there have been more and more interests in these interactive > services from many SDOs including 3GPP and IEEE etc. In year 2020, IEEE has > setup up a new working group related to cloud gaming. In 3GPP since 2019 we > have led Rel-17 5G_AIS (Advanced Interactive Services) and also we are > driving another new Rel-18 study item in 3GPP to further enhance > interaction between application and network for these interactive services > from network perspective. If IETF can have corresponding standard > activities (as 3GPP and IEEE are working on network and lower layers), that > would be great for standards synergy and Internet ecosystem. Otherwise, it > is really a pity that we missed a very important technical direction in > Internet. > > > > [Qin]: That’s a good example on how 3GPP coordinate with IEEE on new > service standardization work. I think Coordination between 3GPP and IETF is > also welcome. > > I think we need to better understand > > 1. the requirements from 3GPP regarding Network Capability Exposure. > > 2. Whether these requirements can be addressed by ALTO protocol > > 3. We also need to make sure there is no overlapping or invent new > wheel. > > This can be resolved by liaison exchange or continue discussion on these > use cases on the list and through virtual meeting. > > I would encourage other proponents to follow the similar approach and > document your use case and collect implementation experience and report > from it. > > Hope this address your comments and concerns. > > > > Therefore, we sincerely hope ALTO can re-consider such way forward. > > > > BRs, > > Chunshan Xiong > > > > *From:* alto <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Qin Wu > *Sent:* Saturday, April 24, 2021 12:06 AM > *To:* IETF ALTO <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; Zaheduzzaman Sarker < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* [alto] WG Review: ALTO Charter Update(Internet mail) > > > > Dear Martin and working group, > > > > Thank you for the useful rechartering discussions on the mailing list and > at IETF-110. > > > > I have listened to the people who say that further protocol work needs to > be based on strong deployment needs, and I also hear very many different > use cases proposed. I think we need more discussion and understanding to > work out which use cases are high priority and which are more > research-based. > > > > This makes me think that we need a small short-term recharter to allow us > to work on immediate issues (protocol maintenance, operational support) > while we discuss and investigate the best uses cases for further work. > > > > So I propose this as our new charter with input from our AD. > > > ========================================================================================= > > Application-Layer Traffic Optimization Working Group Charter Update > > The ALTO working group was established in 2008 to devise a > request/response protocol to allow a host to benefit from a server that is > more cognizant of the network infrastructure than the host is. > > The working group has developed an HTTP-based protocol and recent work has > reported proof-of-concepts of ALTO based solutions supporting applications > such as content distribution networks (CDN). > > To support current and future deployments of ALTO, the working group is > now chartered for the following activities: > > o Provide a place to collect implementation deployment and experience. It > is hoped that implementer and deployers of ALTO will report their > experiences on the mailing list, and the working group will track > implementation and deployment reports on a wiki or in an Internet-Draft. > > o Perform protocol maintenance for the existing published protocol. It is > anticipated that questions and issues will arise concerning the existing > protocol specifications: The working group will develop and publish updates > as necessary to resolve any interoperability, performance, operational, or > security, or privacy problems that arise. The working group will also help > resolve any errata reports that are raised. This work item might be > addressed by discussions and reviews, or might require additional RFCs. > > o Develop operational support tools for the ALTO protocol. Based on > experience from deployments, the advice in RFC 7971 > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7971>, and considering the latest opinions > and techniques from the Operations and Management Area, the working group > will develop tools to configure, operate, and manage the ALTO protocol and > networks that use ALTO. This may include YANG models and OAM mechanisms. > The working group may also update RFC 7971 > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7971> in the light of new experience and > protocol features that were added to ALTO after that RFC was published. > > o Support for modern transport protocols. When work on ALTO began, the > protocol was supported using HTTP version 1. Since then, the IETF has > developed HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. The working group will develop any necessary > protocol extensions and guidance to support the use of ALTO over HTTP/2 and > HTTP/3. > > o Future use cases. The working group will provide a forum to discuss > possible future use cases. The objective of this discussion will be to > determine a small set of use cases that have strong support and a realistic > chance of implementation and deployment. The working group will not develop > protocol extensions for these use cases until it has been re-chartered > specifically for that purpose. > > At the conclusion of the OAM and HTTP2/3 deliverables, plus completion of > any adopted drafts emerging from the other work items, the working group > will close or recharter. > > Milestones and Deliverables: > > - Conduct a survey of working group participants and the wider > community to discover ALTO implementation and deployment experience. Record > the results in a publicly visible wiki. > - Develop and standardize at least one OAM mechanisms to support ALTO > including a YANG model for configuration and management of YANG servers. > - Perform an analysis of ALTO over HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 and publish a > support document. Develop any necessary protocol modifications. > > > ==================================================================================== > > Please comment here on this draft charter proposal. > > > > -Qin (on behalf of chairs) > > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
