Subject: [T2TRG] Review of draft-hong-t2trg-iot-edge-computing-03

From: Thomas Fossati <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 13:25:25 +0000

Hi Xavier and co-authors,

I've read your draft and found it to be a good document.  To me it looks
like a very useful addition to the corpus produced by this RG, so I'd
recommend adoption.

Below I've left a few annotations in case you find them useful.

High level:
- Nicely structured document;
- Some sections are fully developed, other less so, which is totally
  normal at this stage.  In particular, I'm having a bit of trouble
  with Section 3.5 content-/scope-wise.  I also found forward reference
  to Appendix A slightly confusing.  It probably needs a bit of reorg
  to disentangle the various threads into a clearer picture.

Low level:
- Section 3.2.  "It is predicted that by 2019" needs refreshing :-)
- Please remove section 2 altogether, 2119 language is not needed here;
- Section 4.1.  Not just the BE nature of the Internet, it may also be
  simple and pure speed-of-light limitations at work there;
- Section 4.3.  The dual is also true, a cloud back-end might want to
  have a reading of the device even if it's currently asleep.  In this
  case the edge GW caches the last reading and makes it available to the
  cloud;
- Section 4.4.  There's also a threat from passive observers on the
  device-to-cloud path that can do traffic analysis even when the
  communication is encrypted end-to-end.  So hiding the natural traffic
  patterns associated with the sensor network can be a further
  requirement?
- Appendix A.  It's a good snapshot but it has an intrinsic "aging"
  problem.  Maybe better keeping its content in a living document and
  referencing it from here?

Nits:
- "Cloud computing has been a predominant" =>
       "Cloud computing has become a predominant" maybe?
- Not clear what "post-clouds" means in "we will reach the era of
  post-clouds"; Is this an established term? I'd never heard it before.

cheers!
--

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

---

From: Xavier de Foy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:10:21 -0400

Hi Thomas, thanks for taking the time to review and for the constructive
comments.

We (co-authors) basically agree with your points and will take them into
account in our next update (we will leave more time for other reviews to
come in, if any), please find additional details below.

>   to disentangle the various threads into a clearer picture.
[xavier] Yes, it seems best to cut section 3.5 from appendix A, frame it
better as a current "state of the art" overview and maybe place it later in
the document (e.g. after the challenges on IoT, and before describing the
functions).

>   patterns associated with the sensor network can be a further

[xavier] Agreed on your low level comments above. This last comment seems
to be a good additional argument to use EC for IoT.

>   referencing it from here?

[xavier] Agreed, keeping the appendix may not be a good long term solution.
I assume by living document you mean another individual draft?

>   post-clouds"; Is this an established term? I'd never heard it before.
Best Regards,
Xavier.

---

From: Thomas Fossati <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:45:23 +0000

Hi Xavier,

On 20/04/2020, 20:10, "Xavier de Foy" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > [...].  In particular, I'm having a bit of trouble with Section 3.5
> > content-/scope-wise.  I also found forward reference to Appendix A
> > slightly confusing.  It probably needs a bit of reorg to disentangle
> > the various threads into a clearer picture.
>
> [xavier] Yes, it seems best to cut section 3.5 from appendix A, frame
> it better as a current "state of the art" overview and maybe place it
> later in the document (e.g. after the challenges on IoT, and before
> describing the functions).

Sounds like a good plan.

> > Appendix A.  It's a good snapshot but it has an intrinsic "aging"
> [xavier] Agreed, keeping the appendix may not be a good long term
> solution. I assume by living document you mean another individual
> draft?

When I suggested that, I had something like [1] and [2] in mind.

[1] https://github.com/HQarroum/awesome-iot
[2] https://github.com/weblancaster/awesome-IoT-hybrid

cheers!