For what it's worth, On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 6:49 AM Yiannis Yiakoumis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Late on the game, but wanted to share some thoughts on Tommy's and > Lorenzo's draft on per-app networking ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-per-app-networking-considerations > ). > > First of all, having a dedicated document that discusses per-app network > considerations and the implications with privacy and neutrality is great > help, as we can focus such discussion here and separate it from technical > mechanisms that try to offer solutions in these areas. > > A category abstraction is definitely interesting and has its merits. With > regards to privacy, it reduces the information revealed to the network > (subject to generic enough categories). With regards to neutrality, it > addresses - up to a certain extent - concerns around user choice and > competition (i.e., if all gaming apps experience similar network behavior, > there is not much competitive advantage to be earned). With regards to > implementation, if we assume there is a centralized authority for > categorization, there is potential to simplify provisioning of such > services across different administrative domains (especially for E2E > services like latency SLAs which would benefit from a multi-domain > enforcement). And with regards to incentives, it's necessary for services > where a pay-per-use model doesn't work well (e.g., zero-rating). > > 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). > > 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 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. > > 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. > > I see that the document has expired. Is there interest to continue the > effort in follow-up meetings? > I hope so, very much. Tommy said, during the meeting, "Tommy: 3 different legs: one belongs to IAB for the overall architecture, one is still research in solution space, that's trust between those nodes; and here: what are we doing today? tools we have, ways we think are bad to use those tools". That was in response to a question I asked, so Tommy thought there are definitely topics from the presentation that are in scope for the IETF. I said (in Jabber, but it's in the minutes at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/materials/minutes-110-intarea-01) that "this would make a smashing topic for an INTAREA interim meeting before IETF 111,* if the charter allows it.*", but I don't know if anyone ever said that the charter allowed it. Is INTAREA the place we should be talking about this? If not, where? Best, Spencer > Best, > Yiannis > > > Yiannis . > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
