Per-Application Networking Considerations
draft-per-app-networking-considerations-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Lorenzo Colitti  , Tommy Pauly 
Last updated 2020-11-15
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text html xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         L. Colitti
Internet-Draft                                                    Google
Intended status: Informational                                  T. Pauly
Expires: 19 May 2021                                          Apple Inc.
                                                        15 November 2020

               Per-Application Networking Considerations
               draft-per-app-networking-considerations-00

Abstract

   This document describes considerations for and implications of using
   application identifiers as a method of differentiating traffic on
   networks.  Specifically, it discusses privacy considerations,
   possible mitigations, and considerations for user experience and API
   design.

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/tfpauly/per-app-networking-considerations.

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 19 May 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Colitti & Pauly            Expires 19 May 2021                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           Per App Considerations            November 2020

   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.  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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requesting differential treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Open Internet implications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Privacy implications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Mitigating implications via traffic categories  . . . . . . .   5
   6.  User experience considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  API considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   There are a number of use cases where network operators, or
   applications, might desire for application traffic to be treated
   differently by the network.  Some examples are:

   *  Network-specific services.  Applications might want to access
      local resources on a network that does not otherwise provide
      Internet access (for example, an entertainment system on an
      airplane).

   *  Per-application private networks.  Certain applications, such as
      enterprise applications, might want to connect directly to the
      enterprise network in a secure fashion without using a device-wide
      VPN.

   *  Mobile network services.  In mobile networks, applications like
      voice over LTE, IMS and RCS often use a different virtual network
      than general Internet traffic.

Colitti & Pauly            Expires 19 May 2021                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           Per App Considerations            November 2020

   *  Applications with specific performance requirements.  Certain
      applications would benefit from particular scheduling or QoS
      policies - for example applications requiring low latency such as
      voice might be scheduled and queued differently from latency-
      insensitive traffic.

   *  Local breakout.  In a mobile networks, applications might want to
      access resources through a different network interface (e.g., one
      that uses IPv6 addresses that are local to a specific area, and do
Show full document text