Internet DRAFT - draft-irtf-coinrg-use-case-analysis
draft-irtf-coinrg-use-case-analysis
COINRG J. Hong
Internet-Draft ETRI
Intended status: Informational I. Kunze
Expires: 11 January 2024 K. Wehrle
RWTH Aachen
D. Trossen
Huawei
M. J. Montpetit
Concordia
X. de Foy
InterDigital Communications, LLC
D. Griffin
M. Rio
UCL
10 July 2023
Use Case Analysis for Computing in the Network
draft-irtf-coinrg-use-case-analysis-01
Abstract
Computing in the Network (COIN) has the potential to enable a wide
variety of use cases. The diversity in use cases makes challenges in
defining general considerations. This document analyzes the use
cases described in its companion document and potentially explores
additional settings, to identify general aspects of interest across
all use cases. The insights gained from this analysis will guide
future COIN discussions.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 January 2024.
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft COIN Use Case Analysis July 2023
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. COIN Use Cases Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Categorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
The Internet was designed as a best-effort packet network that offers
limited guarantees regarding the timely and successful transmission
of packets. Data manipulation, computation, and more complex
protocol functionalities are generally provided by the end-hosts,
while network nodes are kept simple and only offer a "store and
forward" packet facility. This design choice has shown suitable for
a wide variety of applications and has helped in the rapid growth of
the Internet.
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft COIN Use Case Analysis July 2023
COIN(Computing in the Network) fundamentally changes these
observations by proposing to add meaningful compute functionalities
within the network and thus between the end-hosts. However, building
solutions for COIN-related problems is non-trivial, as there is
currently no consensus on what exactly COIN is. In this context, the
companion document [USECASES] provides a variety of use cases
representing meaningful applications of COIN. While the document
[USECASES] proposes a taxonomy to structure the descriptions of the
different use cases, it does not provide further considerations; for
example, it does not analyze the similarities of the different use
cases and does not draw general conclusions.
This document fills that gap by performing an analysis of the use
cases described in [USECASES] as well as additional ones. In the
following, Section 2 presents general terminology that is maintained
in [TERMINOLOGY]. Section 3 then describes the taxonomy used in
[USECASES] for describing the use cases. The rest of the document
then provides the actual analysis, dividing the overall analysis into
a few, more focused, smaller analyses.
2. Terminology
This document uses the terminology outlined in [TERMINOLOGY].
3. COIN Use Cases Taxonomy
With the expansion of the Internet, there are more and more fields
that require more than best-effort forwarding including strict
performance guarantees or closed-loop integration to manage data
flows. In this context, allowing for a tighter integration of
computing and networking resources, enabling a more flexible
distribution of computation tasks across the network, e.g., beyond
'just' endpoints, may help to achieve the desired guarantees and
behaviors as well as increase overall performance. The vision of
'in-network computing' and the provisioning of such capabilities that
capitalize on joint computation and communication resource usage
throughout the network is core to the efforts in the COIN RG; we
refer to those capabilities as 'COIN capabilities' in the remainder
of the document.
Such vision of 'in-network computing' can be best outlined along four
dimensions of use cases, namely those that (i) provide new user
experiences through the utilization of COIN capabilities (referred to
as 'COIN experiences'), (ii) enable new COIN systems, e.g., through
new interactions between communication and compute providers, (iii)
improve on already existing COIN capabilities and (iv) enable new
COIN capabilities. Sections 3 through 6 capture those categories of
use cases and provide the main structure of this document. The goal
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft COIN Use Case Analysis July 2023
is to present how the presence of computing resources inside the
network impacts existing services and applications or allows for
innovation in emerging fields.
Through delving into some individual examples within each of the
above categories, the objective is to outline opportunities and
propose possible research questions for consideration by the wider
community when pushing forward the 'in-network computing' vision.
Furthermore, the individual use case descriptions aim to provide
insights into the evolving solution space of collected COIN
capabilities, thereby identifying possible requirements. As a
result, we present the following taxonomy, which is used to describe
each of the use cases:
1. Description: Purpose of the use case and explanation of the use
case behavior
2. Characterization: Explanation of the services that are being
utilized and realized as well as the semantics of interactions in
the use case.
3. Existing solutions: Describe, if existing, current methods that
may realize the use case.
4. Opportunities: Outline how COIN capabilities may support or
improve on the use case in terms of performance and other
metrics.
5. Research questions: State essential questions that are suitable
for guiding research to achieve the outlined opportunities
6. Requirements: Describe the requirements for any solutions for
COIN capabilities that may need development along the
opportunities outlined in item 4; here, we limit requirements to
those COIN capabilities, recognizing that any use case will
realistically hold many additional requirements for its
realization.
4. Analysis
The goal of this analysis is to identify aspects that are relevant
across all use cases, thereby contributing to the shaping the
research agenda of COINRG. For this purpose, this section will
condense the opportunities, research questions, as well as
requirements of the different presented use cases and analyze these
for similarities across the use cases.
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft COIN Use Case Analysis July 2023
Through this, we intend to identify cross-cutting opportunities,
research questions as well as requirements (for COIN system
solutions) that can provide valuable insights for both the future
work of COINRG and the broader research community.
When referring to specific research questions (RQ) or requirements
(Req), we use the corresponding identifiers from [USECASES].
4.1. Opportunities
To be added later.
4.2. Research Questions
After carefully considering the different use cases along with their
research questions, we propose the following layered categorization
to structure the content of the research questions which we
illustrate in Figure 1.
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ Applicability Areas +
+ .............................................................+
+ Transport | App | Data | Routing & | (Industrial) +
+ | Design | Processing | Forwarding | Control +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ Distributed Computing FRAMEWORKS and LANGUAGES to COIN +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES for COIN +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ VISION(S) for COIN +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Research Questions Categorization
4.2.1. Categorization
Three categories deal with concretizing fundamental building blocks
of COIN and COIN itself.
* VISION(S) for COIN: Questions that aim at defining and shaping the
exact scope of COIN.
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft COIN Use Case Analysis July 2023
* ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES for COIN: Questions that target the
capabilities of the technologies and devices intended to be used
in COIN.
* Distributed Computing FRAMEWORKS and LANGUAGES to COIN: Questions
that aim at concretizing how a framework or languages for
deploying and operating COIN systems might look like.
In addition to these categories, there are use-case-specific research
questions that are heavily influenced by the specific constraints and
objectives of the respective use cases. These questions fall into
the "applicability areas" category and can be further refined into
the following subgroups:
* Transport: Questions related to COIN's application, addressing the
need to adapt transport protocols to handle dynamic deployment
locations effectively.
* App Design: Questions related to the design principles and
considerations when developing COIN applications.
* Data Processing: Questions related to the handling, storage,
analysis, and processing of data in COIN environments.
* Routing & Forwarding: Questions that explore efficient routing and
forwarding mechanisms in COIN, considering factors such as network
topology, congestion control, and quality of service.
* (Industrial) Control: Questions specific to COIN's application in
industrial control systems, addressing issues like real-time
control, automation, and fault tolerance.
4.2.2. Analysis
4.2.2.1. VISION(S) for COIN
The following research questions presented in the use cases belong to
this category:
3.1.8, 3.2.1, 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 3.3.7, 5.3.3, 6.1.1, 6.1.3
The research questions centering around the COIN VISION dig into what
is considered COIN and what scope COIN functionality should have. In
contrast to the ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES, this section looks at the
problem from a more philosophical perspective.
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft COIN Use Case Analysis July 2023
4.2.2.1.1. Where to perform computations
The first aspect of this is where/on which devices COIN programs
will/should be executed (RQ 3.3.5). In particular, it is debatable
whether COIN programs will/should only be executed in PNDs or whether
other "adjacent" computational nodes are also in scope. In case of
the latter, an arising question is whether such computations are
still to be considered as "in-network processing" and where the exact
line is between "in-network processing" and "routing to end systems"
(RQ 3.3.7). In this context, it is also interesting to reason about
the desired feature sets of PNDs (and other COIN execution
environments) as these will shift the line between "in-network
processing" and "routing to end systems" (RQ 3.1.8).
4.2.2.1.2. Are tasks suitable for COIN
Digging deeper into the desired feature sets, some research questions
address the question of which domains are to be considered of
interest/relevant to COIN. For example, whether computationally-
intensive tasks are suitable candidates for (COIN) Programs (RQ
3.3.6).
4.2.2.1.3. (Is COIN)/(What parts of COIN are) suitable for the tasks
Turning the previous aspect around, some questions try to reason
whether COIN can be sensibly used for specific tasks. For example,
it is a question of whether current PNDs are fast and expressive
enough for complex filtering operations (RQ 3.2.1).
There are also more general notions of this question, e.g., what "in-
network capabilities" might be used to address certain problem
patterns (RQ 6.1.3) and what new patterns might be supported (RQ
6.1.1). What is interesting about these different questions is that
the former raises the question of whether COIN can be used for
specific tasks while the latter asks which tasks in a larger domain
COIN might be suitable for.
4.2.2.1.4. What are desired forms for deploying COIN functionality
The final topic addressed in this part deals with the deployment
vision for COIN programs (RQ 5.3.3).
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft COIN Use Case Analysis July 2023
In general, multiple programs can be deployed on a single PND/COIN
element. However, to date, multi-tenancy concepts are, above all,
available for "end-host-based" platforms, and, as such, there are
manifold questions centering around (1) whether multi-tenancy is
desirable for PNDs/COIN elements and (2) how exactly such
functionality should be shaped out, e.g., which (new forms of)
hardware support needs to be provided by PNDs/COIN elements.
4.2.2.2. ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES for COIN
The following research questions presented in the use cases belong to
this category:
3.1.7, 3.1.8, 3.2.3, 4.2.6, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.6, 5.3.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3,
The research questions centering around the ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES for
COIN dig into what technologies are needed to enable COIN, which of
the existing technologies can be reused for COIN and what might be
needed to make the VISION(S) for COIN a reality. In contrast to the
VISION(S), this section looks at the problem from a practical
perspective.
4.2.2.2.1. COIN compute technologies
Picking up on the topics discussed in Section 4.2.2.1.1 and
Section 4.2.2.1.2, this category deals with how such technologies
might be realized in PNDs and with which functionality should even be
realized (RQ 3.1.8).
4.2.2.2.2. Forwarding technology
Another group of research questions focuses on "traditional"
networking tasks, i.e., L2/L3 switching and routing decisions.
For example, how COIN-powered routing decisions can be provided at
line-rate (RQ 3.1.7). Similarly, how (L2) multicast can be used for
COIN (vice versa) (RQ 5.1.1), which (new) forwarding capabilities
might be required within PNDs to support the concepts (RQ 5.1.2), and
how scalability limits of existing multicast capabilities might be
overcome using COIN (RQ 5.1.6).
In this context, it is also interesting how these technologies can be
used to address quickly changing receiver sets (RQ 6.1.2), especially
in the context of collective communication (RQ 6.1.3).
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft COIN Use Case Analysis July 2023
4.2.2.2.3. Incorporating COIN in existing systems
Some research questions deal with questions around how COIN
(functionality) can be included in existing systems.
For example, if COIN is used to perform traffic filtering, how end-
hosts can be made aware that data/information/traffic is deliberately
withheld. Similarly, if data is pre-processed by COIN, how can end-
hosts be signaled the new semantics of the received data (RQ 4.2.6).
In particular, these are not only questions concerning the
functionality scope of PNDs or protocols but might also depend on how
programming frameworks for COIN are designed. Overall, this category
deals with how to handle knowledge and action imbalances between
different nodes within COIN networks (RQ 5.3.1).
4.2.2.2.4. Enhancing device interoperability
Finally, the increasing diversity of devices within COIN raises
interesting questions of how the capabilities of the different
devices can be combined and optimized (RQ 3.2.3).
4.2.2.3. Distributed Computing FRAMEWORKS and LANGUAGES to COIN
The following research questions presented in the use cases belong to
this category:
3.1.1, 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.5, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2.4, 4.2.5,
4.2.6, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5,
This category mostly deals with how COIN programs can be deployed and
orchestrated.
4.2.2.3.1. COIN program composition
One aspect of this topic is how the exact functional scope of COIN
programs can/should be defined. For example, it might be an idea to
define an "overall" program that then needs to be deployed to several
devices (RQ 5.3.2). In that case, how should this composition be
done: manually or automatically? Further aspects to consider here
are how the different computational capabilities of the available
devices can be taken into account and how these can be leveraged to
obtain suitable distributed versions of the overall program (RQ
4.1.1).
In particular, it is an open question of how "service-level"
frameworks can be combined with "app-level" packaging methods (RQ
3.1.1) or whether virtual network models can help facilitate the
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft COIN Use Case Analysis July 2023
composition of COIN programs (RQ 5.3.5). This topic also again
includes the considerations regarding multi-tenancy support (RQ
5.3.3, cf. Section 4.2.2.1.4) as such function distribution might
necessitate deploying functions of several entities on a single
device.
4.2.2.3.2. COIN function placement
In this context, another interesting aspect is where exactly
functions should be placed and who should influence these decisions.
Such function placement could, e.g., be guided by the available
devices (RQ 3.3.5, c.f. Section 4.2.2.1.1) and their position with
regards to the communicating entities (RQ 3.3.1), and it could also
be specified in terms of the "distance" from the "direct" network
path (RQ 3.3.2).
However, it might also be an option to leave the decision to users or
at least provide means to express requirements/constraints (RQ
3.3.3). Here, the main question is how tenant-specific requirements
can actually be conveyed (RQ 5.2.1).
4.2.2.3.3. COIN function deployment
Once the position for deployment is fixed, a next problem that arises
is how the functions can actually be deployed (RQ 4.2.4). Here,
first relevant questions are how COIN programs/program instances can
be identified (RQ 3.1.4) and how preferences for specific COIN
program instances can be noted (RQ 3.1.5). It is then interesting to
define how different COIN program can be coordinated (RQ 4.2.4),
especially if there are program dependencies (RQ 4.1.2, cf.
Section 4.2.2.3.1).
4.2.2.3.4. COIN dynamic system operation
In addition to static solutions to the described problems, the
increasing dynamics of today's networks will also require dynamic
solutions. For example, it might be necessary to dynamically change
COIN programs at run-time (RQ 4.2.5) or to include new resources,
especially if service-specific constraints or tenant requirements
change (RQ 5.2.2). It will be interesting to see if COIN frameworks
can actually support the sometimes required dynamic changes (RQ
3.2.4). In this context, providing availability and accountability
of resources can also be an important aspect.
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft COIN Use Case Analysis July 2023
4.2.2.3.5. COIN system integration
COIN systems will potentially not only exist in isolation, but will
have to interact with existing systems. Thus, there are also several
questions addressing the integration of COIN systems into existing
ones. As already described in Section 4.2.2.2.3, the semantics of
changes made by COIN programs, e.g., filtering packets or changing
payload, will have to be communicated to end-hosts (RQ 4.2.6).
Overall, there has to be a common middleground so that COIN systems
can provide new functionality while not breaking "legacy" systems.
How to bridge different levels of "network awareness" (RQ 5.3.1) in
an explicit and general manner might be a crucial aspect to
investigate.
4.2.2.3.6. COIN system properties - optimality, security and more
A final category deals with meta objectives that should be tackled
while thinking about how to realize the new concepts. In particular,
devising strategies for achieving an optimal function allocation/
placement are important to effectively the high heterogeneity of the
involved devices (RQ 3.2.4).
On another note, security in all its facets needs to be considered as
well, e.g., how to protect against misuse of the systems,
unauthorized traffic and more (RQ 5.3.4). We acknowledge that these
issues are not yet discussed in detail in this document.
4.2.2.4. Applicability Area - Transport
The following research questions presented in the use cases belong to
this category:
3.1.2
Further research questions concerning transport solutions are
discussed in more detail in [TRANSPORT] and [TRANSPORT-PAPER].
Today's transport protocols are generally intended for end-to-end
communications. Thus, one important question is how COIN program
interactions should be handled, especially if the deployment
locations of the program instances change (quickly) (RQ 3.1.2).
4.2.2.5. Applicability Area - App Design
The following research questions presented in the use cases belong to
this category:
4.2.2, 5.1.1, 5.1.3, 5.1.5
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft COIN Use Case Analysis July 2023
The possibility of incorporating COIN resources into application
programs increases the scope for how applications can be designed and
implemented. In this context, the general question of how the
applications can be designed and which (low-level) triggers could be
included in the program logic comes up (RQ 4.2.2). Similarly,
providing sensible constraints to route between compute and network
capabilities (when both kinds of capabilities are included) is also
important (RQ 5.1.3). Many of these considerations boil down to a
question of trade-off, e.g, between storage and frequent updates (RQ
5.1.5), and how (new) COIN capabilities can be sensibly used for
novel application design (RQ 5.1.1).
4.2.2.6. Applicability Area - Data Processing
The following research questions presented in the use cases belong to
this category:
3.2.4, 4.2.3, 4.3.2
Many of the use cases deal with novel ways of processing data using
COIN. Interesting questions in this context are which types of COIN
programs can be used to (pre-)process data (RQ 4.2.3) and which parts
of packet information can be used for these processing steps, e.g.,
payload vs. header information (RQ 4.3.2). Additionally, data
processing within COIN might even be used to support a better
localization of the COIN functionality (RQ 3.2.4).
4.2.2.7. Applicability Area - Routing & Forwarding
The following research questions presented in the use cases belong to
this category:
3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.1.6, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 6.1.4,
Being a central functionality of traditional networking devices,
routing and forwarding are also prime candidates to profit from
enhanced COIN capabilities. In this context, a central question,
also raised as part of the framework in Section 4.2.2.3.3, is how
different COIN entities can be identified (RQ 3.1.4) and how the
choice for a specific instance can be signalled (RQ 3.1.5). Building
upon this, next questions are which constraints could be used to make
the forwarding/routing decisions (RQ 5.1.3), how these constraints
can be signalled in a scalable manner (RQ 3.1.3), and how quickly
changing COIN program locations can be included in these concepts,
too (RQ 3.1.2).
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft COIN Use Case Analysis July 2023
Once specific instances are chosen, higher-level questions revolve
around "affinity". In particular, how affinity on service-level can
be provided (RQ 3.1.6), whether traffic steering should actually be
performed on this level of granularity or rather on a lower level (RQ
5.1.4) and how invocation for arbitrary application-level protocols,
e.g., beyond HTTP, can be supported (RQ 6.1.4). Overall, a question
is what specific forwarding methods should or can be supported using
COIN (RQ 5.1.2).
4.2.2.8. Applicability Area - (Industrial) Control
The following research questions presented in the use cases belong to
this category:
3.2.5, 3.3.1, 3.3.4, 4.1.1, 4.2.3, 4.3.1
The final applicability area deals with use cases exercising some
kind of control functionality. These processes, above all, require
low latencies and might thus especially profit from COIN
functionality. Consequently, the aforementioned question of function
placement (cf. Section 4.2.2.3.2), e.g., close to one of the end-
points or deep in the network, is also a very relevant question for
this category of applications (RQ 3.3.1).
Focusing more explicitly on control processes, one idea is to deploy
different controllers with different control granularities within a
COIN system. On the one hand, it is an interesting question how
these controllers with different granularities can be derived based
on one original controller (RQ 4.1.1). On the other hand, how to
achieve synchronisation between these controllers or, more generally,
between different entities or flows/streams within the COIN system is
also a relevant problem (RQ 3.3.4). Finally, it is still to be found
out whether using COIN for such control processes indeed improves the
existing systems, e.g., in terms of safety (RQ 4.3.1) or in terms of
performance (RQ 3.2.5).
4.3. Requirements
To be added later.
5. Security Considerations
TBD
6. IANA Considerations
N/A
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft COIN Use Case Analysis July 2023
7. Conclusion
This draft analyzes the COIN use cases described in [USECASES].
8. Informative References
[TERMINOLOGY]
Hong, J., Kunze, I., Wehrle, K., Trossen, D., Montpetit,
M., de Foy, X., Griffin, D., and M. Rio, "Terminology for
Computing in the Network", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-irtf-coinrg-coin-terminology-00 , March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-coinrg-
coin-terminology-01>.
[TRANSPORT]
Kunze, I., Wehrle, K., and D. Trossen, "Transport Protocol
Issues of In-Network Computing Systems", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-kunze-coinrg-transport-issues-05, 25
October 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-kunze-coinrg-transport-issues-05>.
[TRANSPORT-PAPER]
Kunze, I., Trossen, D., and K. Wehrle, "Evolving the End-
to-End Transport Layer in Times of Emerging Computing In
The Network (COIN)", 2022 IEEE 30th International
Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP),
DOI 10.1109/icnp55882.2022.9940379, October 2022,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/icnp55882.2022.9940379>.
[USECASES] Kunze, I., Wehrle, K., Trossen, D., Montpetit, M., de Foy,
X., Griffin, D., and M. Rio, "Use Cases for In-Network
Computing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-
coinrg-use-cases-04, 30 June 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-coinrg-
use-cases-04>.
Authors' Addresses
Jungha Hong
ETRI
218 Gajeong-ro, Yuseung-Gu
Daejeon
34129
Republic of Korea
Email: jhong@etri.re.kr
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft COIN Use Case Analysis July 2023
Ike Kunze
RWTH Aachen University
Ahornstr. 55
D-52074 Aachen
Germany
Email: kunze@comsys.rwth-aachen.de
Klaus Wehrle
RWTH Aachen University
Ahornstr. 55
D-52074 Aachen
Germany
Email: wehrle@comsys.rwth-aachen.de
Dirk Trossen
Huawei Technologies Duesseldorf GmbH
Riesstr. 25C
D-80992 Munich
Germany
Email: Dirk.Trossen@Huawei.com
Marie-Jose Montpetit
Concordia University
Montreal
Canada
Email: marie@mjmontpetit.com
Xavier de Foy
InterDigital Communications, LLC
1000 Sherbrooke West
Montreal H3A 3G4
Canada
Email: xavier.defoy@interdigital.com
David Griffin
University College London
Gower St
London
WC1E 6BT
United Kingdom
Email: d.griffin@ucl.ac.uk
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft COIN Use Case Analysis July 2023
Miguel Rio
University College London
Gower St
London
WC1E 6BT
United Kingdom
Email: miguel.rio@ucl.ac.uk
Hong, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 16]
