Subject: [icnrg] I-D Action: draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 11:31:55 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Information-Centric Networking RG of the IRTF.

        Title           : Considerations in the development of a QoS Architecture for CCNx-like ICN protocols
        Author          : Dave Oran
	Filename        : draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05.txt
	Pages           : 28
	Date            : 2020-08-24

Abstract:
   This is a position paper.  It documents the author's personal views
   on how Quality of Service (QoS) capabilities ought to be accommodated
   in ICN protocols like CCNx or NDN which employ flow-balanced
   Interest/Data exchanges and hop-by-hop forwarding state as their
   fundamental machinery.  It argues that such protocols demand a
   substantially different approach to QoS from that taken in TCP/IP,
   and proposes specific design patterns to achieve both classification
   and differentiated QoS treatment on both a flow and aggregate basis.
   It also considers the effect of caches in addition to memory, CPU and
   link bandwidth as a resource that should be subject to explicitly
   unfair resource allocation.  The proposed methods are intended to
   operate purely at the network layer, providing the primitives needed
   to achieve both transport and higher layer QoS objectives.  It
   explicitly excludes any discussion of Quality of Experience (QoE)
   which can only be assessed and controlled at the application layer or
   above.

   This document is not a product of the IRTF Information-Centric
   Networking Research Group (ICNRG) but has been through formal last
   call and has the support of the participants in the research group
   for publication as an individual submission.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05

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.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Dirk Kutscher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:06:48 +0200

Hello ICNRG,

Dave has kindly updated the QoS Architecture Considerations draft, 
responding to earlier comments from Eve during IRSG review.

I was wondering what people think of this revision. Check out the diff 
to see the changes.

If we are generally happy with it, I'd like to pass it back to the IRSG 
on Monday, August 31st.

As a reminder, this is an individual submission, not a RG document as 
most of our RFCs-to-be. Still, any feedback would be appreciated, of 
course.

Thanks,
Dirk

On 24 Aug 2020, at 20:31, [email-masked] wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg

---

From: Akbar Rahman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 14:23:08 +0000

Hi Dirk/Dave,

I had read it a while ago, and have just re-read it now.  Overall, a very nice draft and I support progressing it.

Just two suggestions for editorial clarification:

- "TCP/IP" is referred to in various sections, and then afterwards the "IP protocol stack" is mentioned once in section 3.2.  Wouldn't it be better to use "IP protocol stack" as the generic reference instead of "TCP/IP".  This is because one is never sure if by "TCP/IP" you also mean to include UDP or not?  And now with the rolling out of QUIC/HTTP (which is UDP based) this distinction becomes more important.  This can become a minor or major point of confusion depending on the reader's background.  I've gotten this feedback myself on other drafts that I have written.

- Is it wise to entitle section 7.7 as "Strawman principles for an ICN QoS architecture" since strawman usually has a negative implication (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ) ?

/Akbar

-----Original Message-----
From: icnrg <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Dirk Kutscher
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 5:07 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [icnrg] I-D Action: draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05.txt

Hello ICNRG,

Dave has kindly updated the QoS Architecture Considerations draft, responding to earlier comments from Eve during IRSG review.

I was wondering what people think of this revision. Check out the diff to see the changes.

If we are generally happy with it, I'd like to pass it back to the IRSG on Monday, August 31st.

As a reminder, this is an individual submission, not a RG document as most of our RFCs-to-be. Still, any feedback would be appreciated, of course.

Thanks,
Dirk

On 24 Aug 2020, at 20:31, [email-masked] wrote:

> 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.
>

[Banner]

[Banner]<https://idcc.me/3g4fCOg>

ABI - Cloud Gaming: Enabling a Next Generation Gaming and Streaming Paradigm<https://idcc.me/3g4fCOg>
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of any privilege or confidentiality obligation. If you received this communication in error, please do not review, copy or distribute it, notify me immediately by email, and delete the original message and any attachments. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message or any attachment should be construed as a digital or electronic signature.

---

From: "David R. Oran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 10:37:25 -0400

On 26 Aug 2020, at 10:23, Akbar Rahman wrote:

> Hi Dirk/Dave,
>
>
> I had read it a while ago, and have just re-read it now.  Overall, a 
> very nice draft and I support progressing it.
>
> - "TCP/IP" is referred to in various sections, and then afterwards the 
> "IP protocol stack" is mentioned once in section 3.2.  Wouldn't it be 
> better to use "IP protocol stack" as the generic reference instead of 
> "TCP/IP".  This is because one is never sure if by "TCP/IP" you also 
> mean to include UDP or not?  And now with the rolling out of QUIC/HTTP 
> (which is UDP based) this distinction becomes more important.  This 
> can become a minor or major point of confusion depending on the 
> reader's background.  I've gotten this feedback myself on other drafts 
> that I have written.
>
I haven’t encountered this problem, especially as I’m using it in a 
mostly historical context, but I get the point. I’m not sure 
“stack” is the right word either, since I definitely am not talking 
about anything at the application layer, like HTTP, SMTP, et.al. I’ll 
give this some thought and if I can excise the explicit “TCP” 
reference without getting too wordy e.g. (“Internet and transport 
layer protocols”), or just get away with “IP”, I will make the 
change.

> - Is it wise to entitle section 7.7 as "Strawman principles for an ICN 
> QoS architecture" since strawman usually has a negative implication 
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ) ?
>
…which is intentional in the sense that they are loose principles, for 
possible replacement in a “real” architecture, and may fall over if 
pushed even moderately hard. I’m happy to keep this connotation to 
ensure people approach this with the right degree of skepticism.

Thanks for the comments!
DaveO.

> This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity 
> to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is 
> privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to 
> anyone other than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission 
> shall not constitute waiver of any privilege or confidentiality 
> obligation. If you received this communication in error, please do not 
> review, copy or distribute it, notify me immediately by email, and 
> delete the original message and any attachments. Unless expressly 
> stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message or any attachment 
> should be construed as a digital or electronic signature.
>

DaveO

---

From: "Dirk Kutscher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 22:08:37 +0200

Thanks, Akbar and everyone who has checked the latest revision.

My conclusion is that Akbar's suggested changes are somewhat optional. 
Since there have not been additional comments, I'd say that we do not 
necessarily need an update (unless Dave really wants to provide one).

Thanks,
Dirk

On 26 Aug 2020, at 16:37, David R. Oran wrote:

>> - "TCP/IP" is referred to in various sections, and then afterwards 
>> the "IP protocol stack" is mentioned once in section 3.2.  Wouldn't 
>> it be better to use "IP protocol stack" as the generic reference 
>> instead of "TCP/IP".  This is because one is never sure if by 
>> "TCP/IP" you also mean to include UDP or not?  And now with the 
>> rolling out of QUIC/HTTP (which is UDP based) this distinction 
>> becomes more important.  This can become a minor or major point of 
>> confusion depending on the reader's background.  I've gotten this 
>> feedback myself on other drafts that I have written.
>>
> I haven’t encountered this problem, especially as I’m using it in 
> a mostly historical context, but I get the point. I’m not sure 
> “stack” is the right word either, since I definitely am not 
> talking about anything at the application layer, like HTTP, SMTP, 
> et.al. I’ll give this some thought and if I can excise the explicit 
> “TCP” reference without getting too wordy e.g. (“Internet and 
> transport layer protocols”), or just get away with “IP”, I will 
> make the change.
>
>> - Is it wise to entitle section 7.7 as "Strawman principles for an 
>> ICN QoS architecture" since strawman usually has a negative 
>> implication (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ) ?
>>
> …which is intentional in the sense that they are loose principles, 
> for possible replacement in a “real” architecture, and may fall 
> over if pushed even moderately hard. I’m happy to keep this 
> connotation to ensure people approach this with the right degree of 
> skepticism.
>
> Thanks for the comments!
> DaveO.
>
>>
>>
>> /Akbar
>>
>>
>>> This draft is a work item of the Information-Centric Networking RG 
>>> of
>>> the IRTF.
>>>
>>>    which can only be assessed and controlled at the application 
>>> layer
>>> or
>>>    above.
>>>
>> privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure 
>> to anyone other than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission 
>> obligation. If you received this communication in error, please do 
>> not review, copy or distribute it, notify me immediately by email, 
>> and delete the original message and any attachments. Unless expressly