Internet DRAFT - draft-nrooney-marnew-report
draft-nrooney-marnew-report
Network Working Group N. Rooney
Internet-Draft GSMA
Expires: November 6, 2017 May 5, 2017
IAB Workshop on Managing Radio Networks in an Encrypted World (MaRNEW)
Report
draft-nrooney-marnew-report-03
Abstract
The MarNEW workshop aimed to discuss solutions for badnwidth
optimisation on mobile networks for encrypted content, as current
solutions rely on unencrypted content which is not indicative of the
security needs of today's internet users. The workshop gathered IETF
attendees, IAB members and various organisations involved in the
telecommunications industry including original equipment
manufacturers and mobile network operators.
The group discussed the current internet encryption trends and
deployment issues identified within the IETF, and the privacy needs
of users which should be adhered. Solutions designed around sharing
data from the network to the endpoints and vice versa were then
discussed as well as analysing whether the current issues experienced
on the transport layer are also playing a role here. Content
providers and CDNs gave an honest view of their experiences delivery
content with mobile network operators. Finally, technical responses
to regulation was discussed to help the regulated industries relay
the issues of impossible to implement or bad-for-privacy technologies
back to regulators.
A group of suggested solutions were devised which will be discussed
in various IETF groups moving forward.
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 http://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."
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 6, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
1. Introduction
Mobile networks have a set of requirements and properties which
places a large emphasis on sophisticated bandwidth optimization.
Encryption is increasing on the internet which is positive for
consumer and business privacy and security. Many existing mobile
bandwidth optimization solutions primarily operate on non-encrypted
communications; this can lead to performance issues being amplified
on mobile networks. Encryption on networks will continue to
increase; and with this understanding the workshop aimed to
understand how we can solve the issues of bandwidth optimization and
performance on radio networks in this encrypted world.
1.1. Understanding "Bandwidth Optimization"
For the purposes of this workshop, bandwidth optimization encompasses
a variety of technical topics related to traffic engineering,
prioritisation, optimisation, efficiency enhancements, as well as
user-related topics such as specific subscription or billing models.
These can include:
o Caching
o Prioritisation of interactive traffic over background traffic
o Per-user bandwidth limit
o Business-related topics such as content delivery arrangements with
specific content providers.
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
Many of these functions can continue as they're performed today, even
with more encryption. Others use methods which require them to
inspect parts of the communication that are encrypted, and these will
have to be done differently in an encrypted Internet.
Finally, while not strictly speaking traffic management, some
networks employ policy-based filtering (e.g., requested parental
controls) and all networks support some form of legal interception
functionality per applicable laws.
1.2. Topics
The workshop aimed to answer questions including:
o Understanding the bandwidth optimization use cases particular to
radio networks
o Understanding existing approaches and how these do not work with
encrypted traffic
o Understanding reasons why the Internet has not standardised
support for lawful intercept and why mobile networks have
o Determining how to match traffic types with bandwidth optimization
methods
o Discussing minimal information to be shared to manage networks but
ensure user security and privacy
o Developing new bandwidth optimization techniques and protocols
within these new constraints
o Discussing the appropriate network layer(s) for each management
function
o Cooperative methods of bandwidth optimization and issues
associated with these
The further aim was to gather architectural and engineering guidance
on future work in the bandwidth optimisation area based on the
discussions around the proposed approaches. The workshop also
explored possible areas for standardization, e.g. new protocols that
can aid bandwidth optimization whilst ensuring user security inline
with new work in the transport layer.
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
1.3. Organization of this report
This workshop report summarizes the contributions to and discussions
at the workshop, organized by topic. The workshop began with scene
setting topics which covered the issues around deploying encryption,
the increased need for privacy on the internet and setting a clear
understanding that ciphertext should remain unbroken. Later sessions
focused on key solution areas; these included evolution on the
transport layer and sending data up or down the path. A session on
application layers and CDNs aimed to highlight both issues and
solutions experienced on the application layer. The workshop ended
with a session dedicated to technical response to regulation with
regards to encryption. The contributing documents were split between
identifying the issues experienced with encryption on radio networks
and suggested solutions. Of the solutions suggested some focused on
transport evolution, some on trusted middleboxes and others on
collaborative data exchange. Solutions were discussed within the
sessions. All accepted position papers and detailed transcripts of
discussion are available at [MARNEW].
The outcomes of the workshop are discussed in Section 7 and 8, and
discuss progress after the workshop toward each of the identified
work items as of the time of publication of this report.
Although policy related topics were out of scope for this workshop
they were infrequently referred to. Report readers should be
reminded that this workshop did not and did not aim to discuss policy
or policy recommendations.
1.4. Use of Note Well and Charter House Rule
The workshop was conducted under the IETF [NOTE_WELL] with the
exception of the "Technical Analysis and Response to Potential
Regulatory Reaction" session which was conducted under
[CHATHAM_HOUSE_RULE].
1.5. IETF and GSMA
The IETF and GSMA [GSMA] have divergent working pratices, standards
and processes. IETF is an open organisation with community driven
standards with the key aim of functionality and security for the
internet's users, the GSMA is membership based and serves the needs
of its membership base most of whom are mobile network operators.
Unlike IETF, GSMA makes few standards. Within the telecommunications
industry standards are set in various divergent groups depending on
their purpose. Perhpas of most relevance to the bandwidth
optimisation topic here is the work of the [SDO_3GPP] which work on
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
radio network and core network standards with their members which
include mobile operators and original equipment manufacturers.
One of the [SDO_3GPP] standards relevant to this workship is PCC-QoS
[PCC-QOS]. Traditionally mobile networks have managed different
applications and services based on the resources available and
priorities given; for instance, emergency services have a top
priority, data has a lower prioirty and voice services are somewhere
inbetween. [SDO_3GPP] defined the PCC-QoS mechanism to support this
functionality, some of which cannot occur for encrypted
communications.
2. Scene Setting Sessions
Scene setting sessions aimed to bring all attendees up to a basic
understanding of the problem and the scope of the workhop. There
were three scene setting sessions: Scene Setting (defining scope),
Encryption Deployment Considerations and Trust Models and User Choice
(Privacy).
2.1. Scene Setting
The telecommunications industry and internet standards are extremely
different in terms of ethos and business practices. Both industries
drive technical standards in their domain and build technical
solutions with some policy-driven use cases. These technologies, use
cases and technical implementations are different; not only this but
motivators between the two industries are also diverse.
To ensure all attendees were aligned with contributing to discussions
and driving solutions this "Scene Setting" session worked on
generating a clear scope with all attendees involved. In short: it
was agreed that ciphertext should not be broken by any solution, that
the radio access network (RAN) is different and does experience
issues with increased encrypted traffic, that we need to understand
what those problems are precisely and that our goal is to improve
user experience on the Internet. Technical solutions for regulation
was not in scope. The full scope is given below.
2.1.1. Scope
The attendees identified and agreed the following scope:
o In discussion we should assume: No broken crypto, Ciphertext
increasingly common, congestion does need to be controlled as do
other transport issues and Network management including efficient
use of resources, in RAN and elsewhere, has to work
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
o How/why is RAN different for transport; help us understand the
complexities of the RAN and how hard it is to manage and why those
matter
o What are the precise problems caused by more ciphertext
o Identify players, incl. Users, and resulting tensions and how
ciphertext changes those
o Some solutions will be radically changed by ciphertext, it's ok to
talk about that
o As good as possible Quality of experience for end user is a goal
o Our aim for the next two days is to analyse the situation and
identify specific achievable tasks that could be tackled in the
IETF or GSMA (or elsewhere?) and that improve the Internet given
the assumptions above
o We should not delve into:
o Ways of doing interception (legal or not), see RFC2804 for why
o Unpredictable political actions.
2.1.2. Encryption Statistics and Radio Access Network Differences
Attendees were shown that encrypted content is reaching around 50%
according to recent statistics [STATE_BROWSER] and [STATE_SERVER].
The IAB are encouraging all IETF groups to consider encryption by
default on their new protocol work and the IETF are also working on
encryption on lower layers, for example TCP encryption within the
[TCPINC] Working Group. The aims of these items of work are greater
security and privacy for users and their data.
Within telecommunications middleboxes exist on operator networks
which have previously considered themselves trusted; but qualifying
trust is difficult and should not be assumed. Some interesting use
cases exist with these middleboxes; such as anti-spam and malware,
but these need to be balanced against their ability to open up cracks
in the network for attacks such as pervasive monitoring. Some needs
to improve the radio access network quality of service could come
from increasing radio access network cells ("Base Stations"), but
this adds to radio pollution; this shows the balancing act when
deivising radio access network architecture.
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
2.2. Encryption Deployment Considerations
Encryption across the internet is on the rise. However, some
organisations and individuals come across a common set of operational
issues when deploying encryption, mainly driven by commercial
perspectives. The [UBIQUITOUS] draft explains these network
management function impacts, detailing areas around incident
monitoring, access control management, and regulation on mobile
networks. The data was collected from various internet players,
including system and network administrators across enterprise,
governmental organisations and personal use. The aim of the document
is to gain an understanding of what is needed for technical solutions
to these issues, maintaining security and privacy for users.
Attendees commented that worthwhile additions would be: different
business environments (e.g. cloud environments) and service chaining.
Incident monitoring in particular was noted as a difficult issue to
solve given the use of URL in today's inicident monitoring
middleware.
Some of these impacts to mobile networks can be resolved using
difference methods and the [NETWORK_MANAGEMENT] draft details these
methods. The draft focuses heavily on methods to manage network
traffic whithout breaching user privacy and security.
By reviewing encryption depoyment issues and the alternative methods
of network management MaRNEW attendees were made aware of the issues
which affect radio networks, the deployment issues which are solvable
and require no further action, and those which aren't currently
solveable and which should be addressed within the workshop.
2.3. Trust Models and User Choice (Privacy)
Solutions of how to improve delivery of encrypted content could
affect some of all of the privacy benefits that encryption brings.
Understanding user needs and desires for privacy is therefore
important when designing these solutions.
From a recent study [Pew2014] 64% of users said concerns over privacy
have increased, 67% of mobile internet users would like to do more to
protect their privacy. The W3C and IETF have both responded to user
desires for better privacy by recommending encryption for new
protocols and web technologies. Within the W3C new security
standards are emerging and the design principles for HTML hold that
users are the stakeholders with most priority, followed by
implementors and other stakeholders, further inforcing the "user
first" principle. Users also have certain security expectations from
particular contexts, and sometimes use new technologies to further
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
protect their privacy even if those technologies weren't initially
developed for that purpose.
Technologies which can impact user privacy sometimes do this ignorant
of the privacy implications or incorrectly assume that the benefits
users gain from the new technology outweigh the loss of private
information. Any new technology which introduces bad security
vectors will be used by attackers. If these technologies are
necessary they should be opt-in.
Internet stakeholders should understand the priority of other
stakeholders. Users should be considered the first priority, other
stakeholders include implementors, developers, advertisers, operators
and other ISPs. Some technologies have been absued by these parties,
such as cookie use or JavaScript injection. This has caused some
developers to encrypt content to circumnavigate these technologies
which they find intrusive or bad for their users privacy.
Some suggested solutions for network management of encrypted traffic
have suggested "trust models". If users and content providers are to
opt-in to user network management services with negative privacy
impacts they should see clear value from using these services, and
understand the impacts on clear interfaces. Users should also have
easy abilities to opt-out. Some users will always automatically
click through consent requests, so any trust model is flawed for
these users. Understanding the extent of "auto click through" may
help make better decisions for consent requests in the future. One
trust model (Cooperative Traffic Management) works as an agent of the
user; by opting-in metadata can be shared. Issues with this involve
trust only being applied on end.
3. Network or Transport Solution Sessions
Network or Transport Solution Sessions aimed to discuss suggested and
new solutions for managing encrypted traffic on radio access
networks. Most solutions focus on the sharing of metadata; either
from the enpoint to the network, from the network to the endpoint, or
cooperative sharing between both. Evolutions on the transport layer
could be another approach to solve some of the issues radio access
networks experience which cause them to require network management
middleboxes. By removing problems on the transport layer the need to
expesnive middleboxes could decrease.
3.1. Sending Data Up / Down for Network Management Benefits
Middleboxes in the network have a number of uses, some which are more
beneficial than they are controversial. Collaboration between these
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
network elements and the endpoints could bring about better content
distribution. A number of suggestions were given, these included:
o Mobile Throughput Guidance [MTG]: exchanges data between the
network elements and the endpoints via TCP Options. It also
allows for gaining a better idea of how the transport protocol
behaves and improving user experience further, although the work
still needs to evolve.
o SPUD [SPUD]: a UDP-based encapsulation protocol to allow explicit
cooperation with middleboxes while using new, encrypted transport
protocols.
o Network Status API: An API for operators to share congestion
status or the state of a cell before an application starts sending
data could allow applications to change their behaviour.
o Traffic classification: classfying traffic and adding this as
metadata for analysis throughout the network. This idea has trust
and privacy implications.
o ConEx [CONEX]: a mechanism where senders inform the network about
the congestion encountered by previous packets on the same flow,
in-band at the IP layer.
o Latency versus Bandwith: allowing the content provider to indicate
whether a better bandwidth or lower latency is of greater priority
and allowing the network to react. Where this bit resides and how
to authenticate it would need to be decided.
o No network management tools: disabling all network management
tools from the network and allow the protocols to manage
congestion alone.
o FlowQueue Codel [FLOWQUEUE]: a hybrid packet scheduler/AQM
algorithm, aiming to reduce bufferbloat and latency. FQ-CoDel
mixes packets from multiple flows and reduces the impact of head
of line blocking from bursty traffic.
Many of these suggestions could be labeled "Network-to-App", a better
approach may be "Network-to-User", to achieve this these ideas would
need to be expanded. Others aim to create "hop-to-hop" solutions,
which could be more inline with how congestion is managed today, but
with greater privacy implications.
"App-to-Network" style solutions have either existed for a long time
by implicit solutions, or explicitly defined but never implemented or
properly deployed. Some workshop attendees agreed that applications
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
declaring was quality of service they require was not a good route
given the lack of success in the past.
3.1.1. Trust and the Mobile Network Complexities
One of the larger issues in the sharing of data is the matter of
trust; networks operators find difficulties in relinquishing data for
reasons such as revealing competitive information and applications
wish to protect their users and only reveal little information to the
network. Authentication in that case could be a key design element
of any new work, as well as explictness rather than the transparent
middleboxes used more recently. Some workshop attendees suggested
any exchange of information should be biodirectional, in an effort to
improve trust between the elements. A robust incentive framework
could provide a solution to the trust issue, or at least help
mitigate it.
The radio access network is complex and manages a number of
realities. Base stations understand many of these realities, and
information within these base stations can be of value other entities
on the path. Solutions for managing congestion on radio networks
should involve the base station if possible. For instance,
understanding how the Radio Resource Controller and AQM [RFC7567]
interact (or don't interact) could provide valuable information for
solving issues. Although many workshop attendees agreed that even
though there is a need to understand the base station not all agreed
that the base station should be part of a future solution.
Some suggested solutions were based on network categorisation and
providing this information to the protocols or endpoints.
Categorising radio networks could be impossible due to their
complexity, but categorising essential network properties could be
possible and valuable.
4. Transport Layer: Issues, Optimisation and Solutions
TCP has been the dominant transport protocol since TCP/IP replaced
NCP on the Arpanet in March 1983. TCP was originally devised to work
on a specific network model that did not anticipate the high error
rates and highly variable available bandwidth scenarios experienced
on modern radio access networks. Furthermore new network elements
have been introduced (NATs and network devices with large buffers
creating bufferbloat), and considerable peer-to-peer traffic is
competing with traditional client-server traffic. Consequently the
transport layer today has requirements beyond what TCP was designed
to meet. TCP has other issues as well; too many services rely on TCP
and only TCP, blocking deployment of new transport protocols like
SCTP and DCCP. This means that true innovation on the transport
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
layer becomes difficult because deployment issues are more
complicated than just building a new protocol.
The IETF is trying to solve these issues through the "Stack
Evolution" programme, and the first step in this programme is to
collect data. Network and content providers can provide data
including: the cost of encryption, the advantages of network
management tools, the deployment of protocols, and the effects when
network management tools are disabled. Network operators do not tend
to reveal network information mostly for competition reasons and so
is unlikely to donate this information freely to IETF. The GSMA is
in the position to collect this data and anonymise it before bringing
it to IETF which should alleviate the network operator worries but
still provide IETF with some usable data.
A considerable amount of work has already been done on TCP,
especially innovation in bandwidth management and congestion control;
although congestion is usually detected by detecting loss, and better
methods based on detecting congestion would be beneficial.
Furthemore, although the deficiencies of TCP are often considered as
key issues in the evolution of the stack, the main route to resolve
these issues may not be a new TCP, but an evolved stack. SPUD [SPUD]
and ICN [RFC7476] are two suggestions which may help here. QUIC
[QUIC] engineers stated that the problems solves by QUIC are general
problems, rather than TCP issues. This view was not shared by all
attendees of the workshop. Moreover, TCP has had some improvements
in the last few years which may mean some of the network lower layers
should be investigated to see whether improvements can be made here.
5. Application Layer Optimisation, Caching and CDNs
Many discussions on the effects of encrypted traffic on radio access
networks happen between implementers and the network operators; this
session aimed to gather the opinions of the content and caching
providers including their experiences running over mobile networks,
the experience their users expect, and what they would like to
achieve by working with or using the mobile network.
Content providers explained how even though this workshop cited
encrypted data over radio access networks as the main issue the real
issue is network management generally, and all actors (applications
providers, networks and devices) need to work together to overcome
theese general network management issues. Content providers
explained how they assume the mobile networks are standard compliant.
When the network is not standards compliant (e.g. using non standards
compliant intermediaries) content providers can experience real costs
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
as users contact their support centres to report issues which are
difficult to test for and build upon.
Content providers cited other common issues concerning data traffic
over mobile networks. Data caps cause issues for users; users are
confused about how data caps work or are unsure how expensive media
is and how much data it consumes. DNS and DNS caching cause
unpredictable results. Developers build products on networks not
indicative of the networks their customers are using and not every
organisation has the finances to build a caching infrastructure.
Strongly related to content providers, CDNs are understood to be a
trusted deliver of content and have shown great success in fixed
networks. Now traffic is moving more to mobile networks there is a
need to place caches at the edge of the network (e.g. in the Gi LAN
or the radio network) within the mobile network. Places caches at
the edge of the mobile network is a solution, but requires standards
developed by content providers and mobile network operators. The
CNDi Working Group [CDNI] at IETF aims to allow global CDNs to
interoperate with mobile CDNs; but this causes huge trust issues for
the caching of encrypted data between these CDNs. Some CDNs are
experimenting with "Keyless SSL" to enable safer storage of content
without passing private keys to the CDN. Blind Caching is another
proposal aimed at caching encrypted content closer to the user and
managing the authentication at the original content provider servers.
At the end of the session the panelists were asked to identify one
key collaborative work item, these were: evolving caching to cache
encrypted content, uing one-bit for latency / bandwidth trade-off
(explained below), better collaboration between the network and
application, better metrics to aid bug solving and innovation, and
indications from the network to allow the application to adapt.
6. Technical Analysis and Response to Potential Regulatory Reaction
This session was conducted under Chatham House Rule. The session
aimed to discuss regulatory and politcal issues; but not their worth
or need, rather to understand the laws that exist and how
technologists can properly respond to these.
Mobile networks are regulated, compliance is mandatory (and can
result in service license revocation in some nations round the world)
and can incur costs on the mobile network operator. Regulation does
vary geographically. Some regulations are court orders, others are
"block lists" of websites such as the Internet Watch Foundation list
[IWF]. Operators are not expected to decrypt sites, so those
identified sites which are encrypted will not be blocked.
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
Parental control-type filters also exist on the network and are
easily bypassed today, vastly limiting their effectiveness. Better
solutions would allow for users to easily set these restirctions
themselves. Other regulations are also hard to meet - such as user
data patterns, or will become harder to collect - such as IoT cases.
Most attendees agreed that if the governments cannot get the
information from network operators they will approach the content
providers. Some governments are aware of the impact of encryption
and are working with or trying to work with content providers. The
IAB have concluded blocking and filtering can be done at the endpoint
of the communication.
These regulations do not always apply to the internet, and the
internet community is not always aware of their existance.
Collectively the internet community can work with GSMA and 3GPP and
act collectively to alleviate the risk imposed by encrypted traffic
for lawful intercept. The suggestion from attendees was that if any
new technical solutions built should have the ability to be easily
switched off.
Some mobile network operators are producing transparency reports
covering regulations including lawful intercept. Operators who have
done this already are encouraging others to do the same.
7. Requirements and Suggestions for Future Solutions
Based on the talks and discussions throughout the workshop a set of
requirements and suggested solutions has been collected. This is not
an exhaustve list.
o Encrypted Traffic: any solution should encourage and support
encrypted traffic.
o Flexibility: radio access network qualities vary vastly and
different network needs in content can be identified, so any new
solution should be flexible to either the network type or content
type or both.
o Privacy: new solutions should not introduce ways where information
can be discovered flows and attribute them to users.
o Minimum data only for collaborative work: user data, app data and
network data all needs protecting, so new solutions should use the
minimum information to make a working solution.
A collection of solutions suggested throughout the workshop is given
below. These solutions haven't been matched to the requirements
above, so this step will need to come later.
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
o Evolving TCP or evolution on the transport layer: this could take
a number of forms and some of this work is already existing within
IETF. Other suggestions include:
o Congestion Control: many attendees cited congestion control as a
key issue, further analysis, investigation and work could be done
here.
o SPROUT: research at MIT which is a transport protocol for
interactive applications that desire high throughput and low
delay. [SPROUT]
o PCC: Performance-oriented Congestion Control: is a new
architecture that aims for consistent high performance even in
challenging scenarios. PCC enpoints observe the connection
between their actions and their known performance, which allows
them to adapt their actions. [PCC]
o CDNs and Caches: placing caches closer to the mobile user or
making more intelligent CDNs would result in faster content
delivery and less train on the network. Related work includes:
o Blind Caching: a proposal for caching of encrypted content
[BLIND_CACHING].
o CDN improvements: including keyless SSL and better CDN placement.
o Mobile Throughput Guidance: a mechanism and protocol elements that
allow the cellular network to provide near real-time information
on capacity available to the TCP server. [MTG]
o One bit for latency / bandwidth tradeoff: using one bit to
identify whether a stream prefers low latency at the expense of
throughput. This rids solutions of the trust issue as
applications will need to select the best scenario for their
traffic type.
o Base Station: some suggestions involved "using the Base Station",
but this was not defined in detail. The Base Station holds the
Radio Resource Controller and scheduler which could provide either
a place to host solutions or data from the Base Station could help
in devising new solutions.
o Identify traffic types via 5-tuple: information from the 5-tuple
could provide understanding of the traffic type which network
management could then be applied.
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
o Heuristics: Networks can sometimes identify traffic types through
specifics such as data flow rate and then apply network management
to these identified flows. This is not recommended as
categorisations can be incorrect.
o APIs: An API for operators to share congestion status or the state
of a cell before an application starts sending data could allow
applications to change their behaviour. Alternatively an API
could provide the network with some information on the data type
to provide network management to, although this method exposes
privacy issues.
o Standard approach for operator to offer services to Content
Providers: mobile network operators could provide caching services
or other services for content providers to use for faster and
smoother content delivery.
o AQM [AQM] and ECN [RFC3168] deployments: queueing and congestion
management methods have existed for sometime in the form of AQM,
ECN and others which can help the transport and internet layer
adapt to congestion faster.
o Trust Model or Trust Framework: some solutions in this area (e.g.
SPUD) have a reliance on trust when content providers or the
network are being asked to add classifiers to their traffic.
o Keyless SSL: allows content providers to maintain their private
keys on a "key server" and host the content elsewhere (e.g. on a
CDN). This could become standardised in IETF. [LURK]
o Meaningful capacity sharing: including the ConEx [CONEX] work
which exposes information about congestion to the network nodes.
o Hop-by-hop: some suggestions offer hop-by-hop methods allowing
nodes to adapt flow given the qualities of the networks around
them and the congestion they are experiencing.
o Metrics and metric standards: in order to evolve current protocols
to be best suited to today's networks data is needed on the
current network situations, protocol deployments, packet traces
and middlebox behaviour. Futher than this proper testing and
debugging on networks could provide great insight for stack
evolution.
o 5G: Mobile operator standards bodies are in the process of setting
the requirements for 5G, requirements for network management could
be added.
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
In the workshop attendees identified other areas where greater
understand could help the standards process. These were identified
as:
o Greater understanding of the RAN at IETF
o Reviews and comments on 3GPP perspective
o How to do congestion controlling in RAN.
7.1. Better Collaboration
Throughout the workshop attendees placed emphasis on the need for
better collaboration between the IETF and telecommunications bodies
and organisations. The workshop was one such way to achieve this,
but the good work and relationships built in the workshop should
continue so the two groups can work on solutions which are better for
both technologies and users.
8. Next Steps
The next steps for MaRNEW attendees are to begin work on a select
list of the above recommended solutions and other suggestions within
the IETF and within other organisations. At IETF95 the ACCORD BoF
will be held which will bring the workshop discussion to the wider
IETF attendance and select key areas to progress on; these are likely
to be definitions of the metrics to be collected, more information on
the stack evolution ideas and their impact to network management,
Mobile Throughput Guidance evolution, evolution of the Blind Caching
work and draft definitions of the "1 bit for latency / bandwidth
tradeoff" idea. As identified in the "Better Collaboration" section
together we need to ensure that both groups continue the positive
relationship to move these ideas forward into being real and workable
solutions and both groups need to understand that even though
collaboration between the operator network and the internet is of
great importance the item of most importance is the experience and
security for the users using these services.
9. Informative References
[RFC7567] Baker, F., Ed. and G. Fairhurst, Ed., "IETF
Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management",
BCP 197, RFC 7567, DOI 10.17487/RFC7567, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7567>.
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
[RFC7476] Pentikousis, K., Ed., Ohlman, B., Corujo, D., Boggia, G.,
Tyson, G., Davies, E., Molinaro, A., and S. Eum,
"Information-Centric Networking: Baseline Scenarios",
RFC 7476, DOI 10.17487/RFC7476, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7476>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[NOTE_WELL]
"IETF Note Well", n.d., <https://www.ietf.org/about/note-
well.html>.
[MARNEW] "MaRNEW Workshop IAB Homepage", n.d.,
<https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/marnew/>.
[CHATHAM_HOUSE_RULE]
"Chatham House Rule", n.d.,
<https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule>.
[GSMA] "GSMA Homepage", n.d., <http://gsma.com>.
[SDO_3GPP]
"3GPP Homepage", n.d., <http://www.3gpp.org/>.
[PCC-QOS] "Policy and charging control signalling flows and Quality
of Service (QoS) parameter mapping", March 2016,
<http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/29213.htm>.
[STATE_BROWSER]
Barnes, R., "Some observations of TLS in the web", July
2015, <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-
93-saag-3.pdf>.
[STATE_SERVER]
Salz, R., "Some observations of TLS in the web", July
2015, <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-
93-saag-4.pdf>.
[TCPINC] "TCP Increased Security Working Group", n.d.,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tcpinc/charter/>.
[UBIQUITOUS]
Morton, K., "Effect of Ubiquitous Encryption", March 2015,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-
01>.
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
[NETWORK_MANAGEMENT]
Smith, K., "Network management of encrypted traffic", May
2015, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-smith-encrypted-
traffic-management-00>.
[Pew2014] "Public Perceptions of Privacy and Security in the Post-
Snowden Era", November 2014,
<http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/11/12/
public-privacy-perceptions/>.
[MTG] Smith, A., "Mobile Throughput Guidance Inband Signaling
Protocol", September 2015,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-flinck-mobile-
throughput-guidance-03.txt>.
[SPUD] "Session Protocol for User Datagrams", n.d.,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/spud/documents/>.
[CONEX] "Congestion Exposure Working Group", n.d.,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/conex/documents/>.
[FLOWQUEUE]
Dumazet, P., "FlowQueue-Codel", March 2014,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoeiland-joergensen-
aqm-fq-codel-00>.
[QUIC] Swett, J., "QUIC, A UDP-Based Secure and Reliable
Transport for HTTP/2", June 2015,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tsvwg-quic-protocol-
00>.
[CDNI] "Content Delivery Networks Interconnection Working Group",
n.d., <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/cdni/charter/>.
[IWF] "Internet Watch Foundation", n.d.,
<https://www.iwf.org.uk/>.
[SPROUT] Balakrishnan, K., "Stochastic Forecasts Achieve High
Throughput and Low Delay over Cellular Networks", April
2013,
<https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/nsdi13/
nsdi13-final113.pdf>.
[PCC] Schapira, M., "PCC, Re-architecting Congestion Control for
Consistent High Performance", May 2015,
<http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.7092v3.pdf>.
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft marnew May 2017
[BLIND_CACHING]
Holmberg, M., "An Architecture for Secure Content
Delegation using HTTP", n.d.,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-http-scd-00>.
[LURK] Ma, D., "TLS/DTLS Content Provider Edge Server Split Use
Case", January 2016, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
mglt-lurk-tls-use-cases-00>.
Author's Address
Natasha Rooney
GSMA
Email: nrooney@gsma.com
URI: https://gsma.com
Rooney Expires November 6, 2017 [Page 19]
