On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 8:49 PM Yiannis Yiakoumis <[email protected]> wrote:
> The big challenge with category-based differentiation is definition and > enforcement of categorization. There is significant experience from > Europe's zero-rating implementation, where regulators approved > category-based zero-rating, and more than 30 network operators implemented > it (based on DPI). In my experience, a decentralized approach (where each > operator defines categories themselves, and enforces them through a > heavyweight implementation process like DPI) doesn't work well, especially > for smaller apps that don't have the resources to work with operators, and > end-up being in a bigger disadvantage when their large competitors > participate in such programs. As a reference point, we've seen 10% success > rate and 8-months average integration time for an eligible music streaming > company to participate in Europe's music zero-rating programs, when the > most popular apps were available in most of them from the very beginning > (more details on this here). > That's a good point. I think it would definitely be useful to note in the draft that categories can sometimes be difficult to define, coordinate, and enforce. A good step forward would be to define a metric around time/cost to > participate, and what advances would help reduce this. Tommy/Lorenzo --- > what are your thoughts on category definitions? Have you seen any > other paradigm we could follow/re-use in terms of category definitions and > eligibility? Could Apple/Play stores playing a role in such an effort? > I think categories/manual review/abuse reporting in app stores could play a role here, as could on-device analysis of app behaviour and traffic patterns. That said - the intent of this draft is not to stray too far into solution space; the primary intent is to call attention to the implications of per-app networking, and I think that's valuable in itself. The idea is that while designing solutions may be a lot more work, at least having a document that says, "here are the implications" will help provide food for thought for folks considering implementing these practices. I think the document would benefit from explicitly mentioning incentives of > different stakeholders, and what mitigation mechanisms exist to align > incentives with protections of privacy and neutrality. For example, a > gaming zero-rating category incentivizes operators to ensure that only > "gaming traffic" would go through there, otherwise there is an incentive > for users/apps to mark their traffic as gaming to get a free ride. In > contrast, in a low-latency category operators can use a pay-per-use pricing > structure, and therefore not care much about what traffic goes over it. > It's true that if apps can simply announce themselves to be whatever category they believe is going to give them better treatment, then they have an incentive to do so. We might want to put some text into the draft about this, and noting that possible ways to make this work would be using trusted/neutral third parties, or with existing business relationships (roughly equivalent, if you will, to a finer-grained way of doing QoS signalling). I think it might be difficult to word that text in a way that is technical enough and concrete enough for an IETF draft though; there's a risk that it would be either too vague or too specific. Think you could suggest something? In that direction, another approach to mitigate neutrality and privacy > considerations (especially for pay-per-use types of services like QoS) is a > user-based approach. The only thing that needs to be communicated is the > desire of a user to forward a packet through a certain path. In that sense > it can be application-agnostic, and therefore address all concerns around > both privacy and net neutrality. > Are you envisaging that the user would make these selections manually? That seems very difficult to explain to users. Perhaps I don't understand? > I see that the document has expired. Is there interest to continue the > effort in follow-up meetings? > We definitely want to continue to update the document and seek adoption if there is interest in the WG.
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
