Subject: [icnrg] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:15:32 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I entered "no objection" as ballot position because I don't think there is any
harm in publishing this document in the RFC series but looking at Lars' comment
I wonder what the intend of the document is and if the RFC series is the right
place to publish. I guess the question is who is the intended audience? I guess
it's more for the 3GPP community to read than for the IETF/IRTF community as
such it would make more sense to publish this information in one of their
venues. Also, are people in 3GPP aware? And how is the relation of the content
of this document to on-going effects in this space in 3GPP?

Connected to this, I also looked at the charter and my reading is that it is
mainly focused on comparing different approaches proposed in research. I
believe the group went already far beyond that and maybe it's time to consider
rechartering.

I also wonder about this sentence in the abstract:
"Multicast and broadcast technologies have recently
   emerged for mobile networks, but their deployments are very limited
   or at an experimental stage. "
Isn't that also true for ICN? As such I find the motivation why ICN is
beneficial in mobile networks rather weak...

One more concrete comment: In section 3.2. you mention type of service (ToS).
Please note that RFC1349 is obsoleted by RFC2474, therefore I recommend
strongly to remove any notion of ToS from this document. However, I do find
this section anyway rather weak as you say ICN is intended to solve this but
then just say it needs further research. I'd potentially rather remove the
whole section.

And one minor comment: Maybe spell out TCO in section 3.4?