Is confirmation from the client in scope?

bryantanwc commented 7 months ago

There have been 2 open issues which relates to making SCONE-PRO bidirectional. One of the use case of making bi-directional is for client to confirm to network that it ack the video streaming media rate. Can I confirm if confirmation from client is currently in scope?

SpencerDawkins commented 6 months ago

Hi, @bryantanwc, I have opinions about this question, and it's quite relevant, but I'd suggest that you ask it on the mailing list that we're using - we're only about a week out from the SCONEPRO BOF, and that's not really enough time for people to notice this question and discuss it in GitHub.

bryantanwc commented 6 months ago

Thanks Spencer. I have emailed the mailing list BR

From: Spencer Dawkins @.> Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 22:54 To: mjoras/SCONE-PROTOCL @.> Cc: Bryan Tan @.>, Mention @.> Subject: Re: [mjoras/SCONE-PROTOCL] Is confirmation from the client in scope? (Issue #51) Hi, @bryantanwc, I have opinions about this question, and it's quite relevant, but I'd suggest that you ask it on the mailing list that we're using - we're only about a week out from the SCONEPRO BOF, and that's not really enough time for people ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi, @bryantanwchttps://github.com/bryantanwc, I have opinions about this question, and it's quite relevant, but I'd suggest that you ask it on the mailing list that we're usinghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sadcdn - we're only about a week out from the SCONEPRO BOF, and that's not really enough time for people to notice this question and discuss it in GitHub.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/mjoras/SCONE-PROTOCL/issues/51#issuecomment-1994587250, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BFO6O2AUKY4KIKESMEQ5TJTYYBSB3AVCNFSM6AAAAABEKF6ZXWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSOJUGU4DOMRVGA. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

SpencerDawkins commented 4 months ago

Hi, @bryantanwc - did you post your question to the sadcdn mailing list? I ask, because I don't see anything in the archives that looks like your question, only in GitHub summaries that were posted to the mailing list.

I'm looking at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sadcdn/?q=confirmation.

bryantanwc commented 4 months ago

Hi Spencer I did send an email out before the last BOF. However, it seems that the charter now lays out that SCONEPRO has to be bidirectional, so would that already address this issue? BR Bryan

From: Spencer Dawkins @.> Date: Thursday, 23 May 2024 at 9:00 AM To: mjoras/SCONE-PROTOCL @.> Cc: Bryan Tan @.>, Mention @.> Subject: Re: [mjoras/SCONE-PROTOCL] Is confirmation from the client in scope? (Issue #51) Hi, @bryantanwc - did you post your question to the sadcdn mailing list? I ask, because I don't see anything in the archives that looks like your question, only in GitHub summaries that were posted to the mailing list. I'm looking at https: //mailarchive. ietf. org/arch/browse/sadcdn/?q=confirmation. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi, @bryantanwchttps://github.com/bryantanwc - did you post your question to the sadcdn mailing list? I ask, because I don't see anything in the archives that looks like your question, only in GitHub summaries that were posted to the mailing list.

I'm looking at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sadcdn/?q=confirmation https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sadcdn/?q=confirmation.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/mjoras/SCONE-PROTOCL/issues/51#issuecomment-2127506281, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BFO6O2HI76VYIH4R7T5HJPLZDYG77AVCNFSM6AAAAABEKF6ZXWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMRXGUYDMMRYGE. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

SpencerDawkins commented 4 months ago

Hi, @bryantanwc,

Hi Spencer I did send an email out before the last BOF. However, it seems that the charter now lays out that SCONEPRO has to be bidirectional, so would that already address this issue?

I have a conversation scheduled with @mjoras and @ihlar in about an hour, so I'll make sure to ask about this, but I'm not sure what you mean. The character string "direction" doesn't appear in the working version of the charter. To be honest, SCONEPRO fans have had different understandings here, so maybe we aren't clear enough in the charter (yet).

Things related to "direction" that we've been we've been confused about, include

Who initiates the use of the SCONEPRO service? The charter does NOW address that - it's always the client, not the server, and not what we're calling the SCONEPRO monitor ("the network"), but that wasn't clear at IETF 119 time.
Who opens the connection for delivery of SCONEPRO network properties? The charter does NOW address that - the SCONEPRO Monitor uses the same connection to the Client that the Client used to "opt in" to the service, but that's a recent clarification.
Can a Server also use SCONEPRO for its "half" of the network path (between the Server and the SCONEPRO monitor)? We don't say anything about this in the charter now.

As I reread your issue description more carefully, I think you're asking about something different from all of these, but I'm not sure whether you're asking for the client to

confirm to the SCONEPRO monitor that it has received a current throughput number, or maybe
confirm to the SCONEPRO monitor what the client is telling the server?

Are either of these questions what you're asking about? If not, could you clarify?

ihlar commented 4 months ago

I think both of those are interesting. I do think there is coverage in the current version of the charter:

Network properties sent from the network. The network provides the properties to the client. The client might communicate with the network, but won't be providing network properties.

bryantanwc commented 4 months ago

Thanks Marcus Spencer, my original intent was to ask if the client would communicate with the network, as the original charter spelt out network to client. With the wording highlighted by Marcus, I believe the charter now makes clear bi-directional communication is possible

Also appreciate the clarity you helped provide below.

Who initiates the use of the SCONEPRO service? The charter does NOW address that - it's always the client, not the server, and not what we're calling the SCONEPRO monitor ("the network"), but that wasn't clear at IETF 119 time.
Who opens the connection for delivery of SCONEPRO network properties? The charter does NOW address that - the SCONEPRO Monitor uses the same connection to the Client that the Client used to "opt in" to the service, but that's a recent clarification.

From: Marcus Ihlar @.> Date: Wednesday, 29 May 2024 at 10:16 PM To: mjoras/SCONE-PROTOCL @.> Cc: Bryan Tan @.>, Mention @.> Subject: Re: [mjoras/SCONE-PROTOCL] Is confirmation from the client in scope? (Issue #51) I think both of those are interesting. I do think there is coverage in the current version of the charter: Network properties sent from the network. The network provides the properties to the client. The client might communicate with the network, ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

I think both of those are interesting. I do think there is coverage in the current version of the charter:

Network properties sent from the network. The network provides the properties to the client. The client might communicate with the network, but won't be providing network properties.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/mjoras/SCONE-PROTOCL/issues/51#issuecomment-2137525813, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BFO6O2DDUPJJWRNO7WKU5RTZEXPHRAVCNFSM6AAAAABEKF6ZXWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZXGUZDKOBRGM. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

SpencerDawkins commented 4 months ago

Hi, @bryantanwc, As I reread your issue description more carefully, I think you're asking about something different from all of these, but I'm not sure whether you're asking for the client to

confirm to the SCONEPRO monitor that it has received a current throughput number, or maybe

confirm to the SCONEPRO monitor what the client is telling the server?

Are either of these questions what you're asking about? If not, could you clarify?

So, we think this is covered in the charter text

I think both of those are interesting. I do think there is coverage in the current version of the charter:

Network properties sent from the network. The network provides the properties to the client. The client might communicate with the network, but won't be providing network properties.

If The client might communicate with the network, but won't be providing network properties. includes SCONEPRO defining this non-network property communication, @SpencerDawkins is happy.

SpencerDawkins commented 4 months ago

Result - we realize that we need to standardize more than "I'm opting in" and "here are your network properties", but no change is required to the charter text.

mjoras / SCONE-PROTOCL

Is confirmation from the client in scope? #51