Hi all, I have gone through the document and I would like to share some comments on it.
.- Introduction / regarding the examples provided: These cases could not have the same regulatory treatment. This is an important consideration because there could be limitations in some cases/situations. .- Specifically regarding the zero rating example: In my view this is more administrative than technical, in the sense that the networking behavior does not change. It is only a matter of OSS/BSS to account that traffic as chargeable or not. .- Introduction / “Thus, if an application is to receive different treatment, the host or the application itself should be involved in requesting specific network treatment”: This has different implications. For instance, if the application itself takes the decision without knowledge/approval of the user, it could impact / interfere in other applications in the same device / access line. How this potential problem can be controlled? .- Section 2 / in the 1st paragraph you provide the idea of applications requesting and obtaining particular treatment: (1) how do you foresee the application requesting differentiation?; and (2) how such differentiation is verified?. Probably good to dig into for the different mechanisms listed, but also for whatever new that could be defined from this effort. Additionally, the applications could have other mechanisms in place such as congestion control. Maybe necessary to differentiate effects from some mechanisms and the ohers (and/or to see how to gracefully coordinate them). .- Section 3 / “In a situation where the network operator has influence on the implementation of the user host”: To be fair, probably the same comment should be made with respect to the operating systems on the devices (for instance, with respect to congestion control mechanisms implemented). .- Section 3 / “… by ensuring that the mechanism used to communicate requests to the network only specifies traffic classes and not individual applications.”: This is important. The actual model, based on best effort and/or overprovisioning does not scale. Having view of traffic classes is great, but not all the applications can be high-priority. Somehow there should be some capacity (quota?) allocated per traffic class. But again it could be the case that such capacity is exhausted. What happens then? I mean, there are two points to discuss: (1) interchange information for assisting on stable situations, and (2) how to handle congestion because e.g. network failures, sudden demands, or even over-prioritization from the applications. .- Section 4 / reference to “appropriate policies” in the 1st paragraph: The policies are implemented based on identifiers, e.g. origin-destination, labels, etc. Now new kind of policies could be required based on the class of service (so the “identifier” would be now the class of service, not the application itself, due to privacy and other concerns described later). .- Section 4 / “… instead of the application originating the traffic” & “… specify general categories ”: The same should be required in the host or device. .- Section 5 / regarding categories of traffic that “… need to be sufficiently broad … ”: The broader, the less informative would be. The risk is to give room to (mis)interpretations. A proper balance of prescription and description is needed to ensure the expected behavior in the network. .- Section 6 / “if the host's user is informed that particular applications are seeking or designated for particular treatment and consents to it.”: This can only be done by the application. The operating system of the device does not necessarily knows what is the treatment required by a given application. Maybe would be necessary to distinguish what should/must/can be done by the application, the host/device, and the network .- Section 7 / “Any API should not involve revealing an application or user identity to the network via metadata without network authentication.”: This could be problematic for charging purposes in e.g. wholesale scenarios. .- Section 7 / “"this is my application identifier "”: however in the sentence before you refer to “my app” anyway. Thanks Luis El mar, 17 nov 2020 a las 5:22, Tommy Pauly (<tpauly= [email protected]>) escribió: > Hello INTAREA, > > We published a draft this week that we’d like to briefly introduce for > discussion within the intarea WG, draft-per-app-networking-considerations. > This is an informational document that discusses the implications of a > trend we’ve noticed towards putting more application identifiers or > per-application logic in the network layers. Many different proposals touch > on the idea of differentiating traffic based on application, but we believe > it would be useful to have a general statement about the privacy trade-offs > and design considerations in this space. Moreover, we think that a broad > technical group like intarea may be the right place to discuss and review > this work. > > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-per-app-networking-considerations-00.html > > Your reviews and thoughts are appreciated! > > Best, > Tommy & Lorenzo > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *[email protected] > *Subject: **New Version Notification for > draft-per-app-networking-considerations-00.txt* > *Date: *November 15, 2020 at 8:02:12 PM PST > *To: *Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]>, Tommy Pauly <[email protected]> > > > A new version of I-D, draft-per-app-networking-considerations-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Tommy Pauly and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-per-app-networking-considerations > Revision: 00 > Title: Per-Application Networking Considerations > Document date: 2020-11-15 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 7 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-per-app-networking-considerations-00.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-per-app-networking-considerations/ > Html: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-per-app-networking-considerations-00.html > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-per-app-networking-considerations-00 > > > Abstract: > This document describes considerations for and implications of using > application identifiers as a method of differentiating traffic on > networks. Specifically, it discusses privacy considerations, > possible mitigations, and considerations for user experience and API > design. > > Discussion Venues > > This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. > > Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at > https://github.com/tfpauly/per-app-networking-considerations. > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > -- ___________________________________________ Luis M. Contreras [email protected] [email protected] Global CTIO unit / Telefonica
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
