Network Working Group L. Dunbar
Internet Draft Futurewei
Intended status: Standard K. Majumdar
Expires: February 18, 2023 Microsoft
H. Wang
Huawei
G. Mishra
Verizon
August 18, 2022
BGP AppMetaData for 5G Edge Service
draft-dunbar-idr-5g-edge-compute-app-meta-data-12
Abstract
This draft describes three new subTLVs for egress routers to
advertise the AppMetaData of the directly attached edge
services (ES). The AppMetaData can be used by the ingress
routers in the 5G Local Data Network to make path selection
not only based on the routing cost but also the running
environment of the edge services. The goal is to improve
latency and performance for 5G edge services.
The extension enables an edge service at one specific location
to be more preferred than the others with the same IP address
(ANYCAST) to receive data flows from a specific source (UE).
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be
modified, and derivative works of it may not be created,
except to publish it as an RFC and to translate it into
languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working
groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working
documents as Internet-Drafts.
xxx, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft AppMetaData for 5G EC Service
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed
at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 7, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.............................................. 3
2. Conventions used in this document......................... 3
3. BGP Protocol Extension to advertise Load & Capacity....... 5
3.1. Ingress Node BGP Path Selection Behavior............. 5
3.1.1. AppMetaData Influenced BGP Path Selection....... 5
3.1.2. Ingress Router Forwarding Behavior.............. 5
3.1.3. Forwarding Behavior when UEs moving to new 5G
Sites.................................................. 7
4. AppMetaData Encoding...................................... 7
4.1. The Site Preference Index sub-TLV format............. 8
4.2. Capacity Index AppMetaData........................... 9
4.2.1. Capacity Site Index attached to services....... 10
Dunbar, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft AppMetaData for 5G EC Service
4.2.2. BGP UPDATE with standalone Capacity Site Index. 10
4.3. Load Measurement sub-TLV format..................... 11
5. Consideration for Optimal Paths Selection................ 12
6. AppMetaData Propagation Scope............................ 13
7. Minimum Interval for Metrics Change Advertisement........ 13
8. Manageability Considerations............................. 13
9. Security Considerations.................................. 13
10. IANA Considerations..................................... 13
11. References.............................................. 14
11.1. Normative References............................... 14
11.2. Informative References............................. 14
12. Acknowledgments......................................... 15
1. Introduction
[5g-edge-Compute] describes the 5G Edge Computing background
and how BGP can be used to advertise the running status and
environment of the directly attached 5G edge services. Besides
the Radio Access, 5G is characterized by having edge services
closer to the Cell Towers reachable by Local Data Networks
(LDN) [3GPP TS 23.501]. From IP network perspective, the 5G
LDN is a limited domain with edge services a few hops away
from the ingress nodes. Only selective services by UEs are
considered as 5G Edge Services.
This document describes three new subTLVs for egress routers
to advertise the AppMetaData of the directly attached edge
services. Note: the proposed AppMetaData are not intended for
the services reachable via the networks outside the 5G LDN.
The AppMetaData can be used by the ingress routers in the 5G
Local Data Network to make path selection not only based on
the routing distance but also the running environment of the
edge cloud sites. The goal is to improve latency and
performance for 5G edge services.
The extension is targeted for single domain iBGP. AppMetaData
is only attached to the services (routes) hosted in the 5G
edge cloud sites, which are only a small subset of services
initiated from UEs. E.g., not for UEs accessing many internet
sites.
2. Conventions used in this document
Application Server: An application server is a physical or
virtual server that hosts the software system for
the application.
Dunbar, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft AppMetaData for 5G EC Service
Application Server Location: Represent a cluster of servers at
one location serving the same Application. One
application may have a Layer 7 Load balancer,
whose address(es) are reachable from an external
IP network, in front of a set of application
servers. From an IP network perspective, this
whole group of servers is considered as the
Application server at the location.
Edge Application Server: used interchangeably with Application
Server throughout this document.
Edge Hosting Environment: An environment providing the support
required for Edge Application Server's execution.
NOTE: The above terminologies are the same as
those used in 3GPP TR 23.758
Edge DC: Edge Data Center, which provides the Hosting
Environment for the edge services. An Edge DC
might host 5G core functions in addition to the
frequently used application servers.
gNB next generation Node B
PSA: PDU Session Anchor (UPF)
SSC: Session and Service Continuity
UE: User Equipment
UPF: User Plane Function
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when,
and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
Dunbar, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft AppMetaData for 5G EC Service
3. BGP Protocol Extension to advertise Load & Capacity
The goal of the BGP extension is for egress routers to
propagate the metrics about their running environment to
ingress routers. Here are some examples of the metrics
propagated by the egress routers:
- the Load Measurement Index for the attached EC Servers,
- the Capacity Index, and
- Site Preference Index.
This section specifies the Load Index Sub-TLV, Capacity Sub-
TLV, and the Site Preference Sub-TLV that can be carried by
the Tunnel Encap Path Attribute [RFC9012] associated with the
routes.
3.1. Ingress Node BGP Path Selection Behavior
3.1.1. AppMetaData Influenced BGP Path Selection
When an ingress router receives BGP updates for the same IP
address from multiple egress routers, all those egress routers
are considered as the next hops for the IP address. For the
selected EC services, the ingress router's BGP engine would
call a Plugin function that can select paths based on the
AppMetaData received. The Plugin function is called Load
Compute Engine throughout this document.
Suppose a destination address for a service (aa08::4450) can
be reached by three next hops (R1, R2, R3). Further, suppose
the local BGP's Compute Engine Identifies the R1 as the
optimal next hop for flows to be sent to this destination
(aa08::4450). The Load Compute Engine can insert a higher
weight for the tunnel associated with R1 for the prefix via
the tunnel. Suppose BGP Add Path is supported [RFC7911], all
three paths can be added to the FIB who can choose the optimal
paths for the received data packets.
3.1.2. Ingress Router Forwarding Behavior
When the ingress router receives a packet and lookup the route
in the FIB, it gets the destination prefix's whole path. It
encapsulates the packet destined towards the optimal egress
node.
Dunbar, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft AppMetaData for 5G EC Service
For subsequent packets belonging to the same flow, the ingress
router needs to forward them to the same egress router unless
the selected egress router is no longer reachable. Keeping
packets from one flow to the same egress router, a.k.a. Flow
Affinity, is supported by many commercial routers. Most
registered EC services have relatively short flows.
How Flow Affinity is implemented is out of the scope for this
document. Here is one example to illustrate how Flow Affinity
can be achieved. This illustration is an informational
example.
For the registered EC services, the ingress node keeps a
table of
- Service ID (i.e., IP address)
- Flow-ID
- Sticky Egress ID (egress router loopback address)
- A timer
The Flow-ID in this table is to identify a flow, initialized
to NULL. How Flow-ID is constructed is out of the scope for
this document. Here is one example of constructing the Flow-
ID:
- For IPv6, the Flow-ID can be the Flow-ID extracted from
the IPv6 packet header with or without the source
address.
- For IPv4, the Flow-ID can be the combination of the
Source Address with or without the TCP/UDP Port number.
The Sticky Egress ID is the egress node address for the same
flow. [5G-Edge-Sticky] describes several methods to derive
the Sticky Egress ID.
The Timer is always refreshed when a packet with the
matching EC Service ID (IP address) is received by the node.
If there is no Stick Egress ID present in the table for the
EC Service ID, the forwarding plane can select a NextHop
influenced by the Load Compute Engine. The forwarding plane
encapsulates the packet with a tunnel to the chosen NextHop.
The chosen NextHop and the Flow ID are recorded in the EC
Service table entry.
When the selected optimal NextHop (egress router) is no longer
reachable, refer to Section 6 Soft Anchoring on how another
path is selected.
Dunbar, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft AppMetaData for 5G EC Service
3.1.3. Forwarding Behavior when UEs moving to new 5G Sites
When a UE moves to a new 5G gNB which is anchored to the same
UPF, the packets from the UE traverse to the same ingress
router. Path selection and forwarding behavior are same as
before.
If the UE maintains the same IP address when anchored to a new
UPF, the directly connected ingress router might use the
information passed from a neighboring router to derive the
optimal Next Hop for this route. [5G-Edge-Sticky] describes
some methods for the ingress router connected to the UPF in
the new site to consider the information passed from other
ingress routers in selecting the optimal paths. The detailed
algorithm is out of the scope of this document.
4. AppMetaData Encoding
There are three types AppMetaData: Capacity Index Value, Site
Preference Value, and Load Cost. They are encoded in an
optional subTLV within the Tunnel Encap [RFC9012] Path
Attribute.
For routes associated with a specific tunnel, the AppMetaData
is attached as sub-TLV of the corresponding Tunnels.
If there is no tunnel between the ingress and egress nodes,
Tunnel-Type = 16 (BARE) should be used.
If the AppMetaData is applicable to all tunnel types between
the ingress and the egress nodes, Tunnel-Type = BARE can also
be used.
Note: attaching the AppMetaData to Tunnel Encap path attribute
allow the AppMetaData applicable to different NLRIs.
All values in the Sub-TLVs are unsigned 32 bits integers.
Dunbar, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft AppMetaData for 5G EC Service
4.1. The Site Preference Index sub-TLV format
The Site Preference Index is another factor integrated into
the total cost for path selection. One Edge Cloud site can
have fewer computing servers, less power, or lower internal
network bandwidth than another. E.g., one micro edge computing
center located at a remote cell site has less preference value
than an edge site in a metro area that hosts management
systems, analytics functions, and security functions.
The Preference Index sub-TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Site-Preference Sub-Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preference Index value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Preference Index Sub-TLV
Preference Index value: 1-100, with 1 being least preferred,
and 100 being the most preferred.
Dunbar, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft AppMetaData for 5G EC Service
4.2. Capacity Index AppMetaData
Capacity Index indicates the capacity value for a site or a
pod where the edge services are hosted. One Edge Site can be
in full capacity, or reduced capacity.
Cloud Site/Pod failures and degradation include, but not
limited to, a site capacity degradation or entire site going
down caused by a variety of reasons, such as fiber cut
connecting to the site or among pods within one site, cooling
failures, insufficient backup power, cyber threats attacks,
too many changes outside of the maintenance window, etc.
Fiber-cut is not uncommon within a Cloud site or between
sites.
When those failure events happen, the Edge (egress) router
visible to the ingress routers can be running fine. Therefore,
the ingress routers can't use BFD to detect the failures.
When there is a failure occurring at an edge site (or pod),
many instances can be impacted. In addition, the routes (i.e.,
the IP addresses) in an Edge Cloud Site might not be
aggregated nicely. Instead of many BGP UPDATE messages for
each instance to the impacted ingress routers, the egress
router can send one single BGP UPDATE indicating the capacity
of the site. The ingress routers can switch all or a portion
of the instances that are associated with the site depending
on how much the site is degraded.
The Capacity Index can be attached as a sub-TLV under the
Tunnel-Encap path attribute:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Capacity-SubType | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Site-ID (2 octets) | Site Capacity |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- Capacity subtype: (TBD by IANA)
- Site ID: identifier for a group of routes whose capacity is
indicated by the capacity value carried in the UPDATE. There
could be more than one sites (or Pods) connected to the egress
router (a.k.a. Edge DC GW)
Dunbar, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft AppMetaData for 5G EC Service
- Site Capacity: represent the percentage of the site
availability, e.g., 100%, 50%, or 0%. When a site goes dark,
the Index is set to 0. 50 means 50% capacity functioning.
4.2.1. Capacity Site Index attached to services
The purpose of the Capacity Site index is to advertise the
service instance's site reference identifier and the capacity
value of the site.
However, it is not necessary to include the Capacity Site
Index for every BGP Update message if there is no change to
the site-reference identifier or the Capacity value for the
service instances.
The ingress routers associate the Site reference Identifier to
the routes in the Routing table.
4.2.2. BGP UPDATE with standalone Capacity Site Index
When there are failures or degradation to a site, the
corresponding egress router can send a BGP UPDATE with the
Capacity Site Index without attaching any routes.
When an ingress router receives a BGP Update message from
Router-X with the Site-Capacity Sub-TLV without routes
attached, the new Site-Capacity value is applied to all routes
that have the Router-X as their next hops and are associated
with the Site-ID in the SubTLV.
Dunbar, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft AppMetaData for 5G EC Service
4.3. Load Measurement sub-TLV format
Two types of Load Measurement Sub-TLVs are specified. One is
to carry the aggregated cost Index based on a weighted
combination of the collected measurements; another one is to
carry the raw measurements of packets/bytes to/from the App
Server address. The raw measurement is useful when ingress
routers have embedded analytics relying on the raw
measurements.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| subType=Aggregated-Cost | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Measurement Period |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Aggregated Load Index to reach the App Server |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Aggregated Load Index Sub-TLV
Aggregated-Cost Sub-Type(TBD1): Aggregated Load Measurement
Index to reach toe App Server, which is configured or
calculated by the egress nodes.
Raw Load Measurement sub-TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| subType= Raw-Measurements | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Measurement Period |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| total number of packets to the AppServer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| total number of packets from the AppServer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| total number of bytes to the AppServer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| total number of bytes from the AppServer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Raw Load Measurement Sub-TLV
Raw-Measurement Sub-Type (TBD2): Raw measurements of
packets/bytes to/from the App Server address.
Dunbar, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft AppMetaData for 5G EC Service
The receiver nodes can calculate the cost to reach the App
server by a weighted combination of raw measurements sent
from the App server, e.g.
Index=w1*ToPackets+w2*FromPackes+w3*ToBytes+w4*FromBytes
Where wi, which are configured by operators, is a value
between 0 and 1; w1+ w2+ w3+ w4 = 1.
Measure Period: BGP Update period or user-specified period.
5. Consideration for Optimal Paths Selection
When a CPE receives BGP updates for the same IP address from
multiple routers, all those egress routers are considered as
the potential paths (or next hops) for the IP address (i.e.,
if the BGP Add Path is supported). For the selected services,
the ingress router's BGP engine would call a Plugin function
that can select paths based on the cost associated with the
client route received, such as Site-Capacity-Index, Site
Preference, load index, and network cost. The Plugin function
is called Cost Compute Engine throughout this document. When
any of those factors goes to 0, the effect is the same as
route withdrawal. But when any of those factors just degrade,
the effect could be a path to another site becoming more
optimal.
Suppose a destination address for aa08::4450 can be reached by
three next hops (R1, R2, R3). Further, suppose the local BGP's
Compute Engine Identifies the R1 as the optimal next hop for
flows to be sent to this destination (aa08::4450). The Cost
Compute Engine can insert a higher weight for the tunnel
associated with R1 for the prefix via the tunnel.
For routes associated with a specific tunnel, the AppMetaData
is attached as sub-TLV of the corresponding Tunnels.
If there is no tunnel between the ingress and egress nodes,
Tunnel-Type = 16 (BARE) should be used.
If the AppMetaData is applicable to all tunnel types between
the ingress and the egress nodes, Tunnel-Type = BARE can also
be used.
Note: attaching the AppMetaData to Tunnel Encap path attribute
allow the AppMetaData applicable to different NLRIs.
Dunbar, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft AppMetaData for 5G EC Service
6. AppMetaData Propagation Scope
AppMetaData is only to be distributed to the relevant ingress
nodes of the 5G EC local data networks. Only the ingress
routers that are configured with the 5G EC services need to
receive the AppMetaData for specific Service IDs.
For each registered EC service, a corresponding filter group
can be formed on RR to represent the interested ingress
routers that are interested in receiving the corresponding
AppMetaData information.
7. Minimum Interval for Metrics Change Advertisement
As the metrics change can impact the path selection, the
Minimum Interval for Metrics Change Advertisement is
configured to control the update frequency to avoid route
oscillations. Default is 30s.
Significant load changes at EC data centers can be triggered
by short-term gatherings of UEs, like conventions, lasting a
few hours or days, which are too short to justify adjusting EC
server capacities among DCs. Therefore, the load metrics
change rate can be in the magnitude of hours or days.
8. Manageability Considerations
To be added.
9. Security Considerations
To be added.
10. IANA Considerations
Need IANA to assign three new Sub-TLV types under the Tunnel
Encap attribute [RFC9012]:
Type = TBD1: Aggregated Load Measurement Index derived from
the Weighted combination of bytes/packets sent to/received
from the App server.
Type = TBD2: Raw measurements of packets/bytes to/from the
App Server address.
Dunbar, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft AppMetaData for 5G EC Service
Type = TBD3: Site preference value sub-TLV
Need IANA to assign one new sub-TLV type under the Opaque
Extended Community:
Type = TBD4: Capacity value sub-TLV
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4364] E. rosen, Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
networks (VPNs)", Feb 2006.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI
10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC7911] D. Walton, et al, "Advertisement of Multiple Paths
in BGP", RFC7911, July 2016.
[RFC9012] E. Rosen, et al "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation
Attribute", RFC9012, April 2021.
11.2. Informative References
[3GPP TS 23.501] 3rd Generation Partnership Project;
Technical Specification Group Services and System
Aspects; System architecture for the 5G System (5GS)
[3GPP-EdgeComputing] 3GPP TR 23.748, "3rd Generation
Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group
Services and System Aspects; Study on enhancement of
support for Edge Computing in 5G Core network
(5GC)", Release 17 work in progress, Aug 2020.
Dunbar, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft AppMetaData for 5G EC Service
[5G-EC-Metrics] L. Dunbar, H. Song, J. Kaippallimalil, "IP
Layer Metrics for 5G Edge Computing Service", draft-
dunbar-ippm-5g-edge-compute-ip-layer-metrics-00,
work-in-progress, Oct 2020.
[5g-edge-Compute] L. Dunbar, K. Majumdar, H. Wang, and G.
Mishra, "BGP Usage for 5G Edge Computing service
Metadata", draft-dunbar-idr-5g-edge-compute-bgp-
usage-00, work-in-progress, July 2022.
[5G-Edge-Sticky] L. Dunbar, J. Kaippallimalil, "IPv6 Solution
for 5G Edge Computing Sticky Service", draft-dunbar-
6man-5g-ec-sticky-service-00, work-in-progress, Oct
2020.
[SDWAN-EDGE-Discovery] L. Dunbar, S. Hares, R. Raszuk, K.
Majumdar, "BGP UPDATE for SDWAN Edge Discovery",
draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-03, July 2022.
12. Acknowledgments
Acknowledgements to Adrian Farrel, Robert Raszuk, Sue Hares,
Donald Eastlake, and Cheng Li for their review and
contributions.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Dunbar, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft AppMetaData for 5G EC Service
Authors' Addresses
Linda Dunbar
Futurewei
Email: ldunbar@futurewei.com
Kausik Majumdar
Microsoft
Email: kmajumdar@microsoft.com
Haibo Wang
Huawei
Email: rainsword.wang@huawei.com
Gyan Mishra
Verizon
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Dunbar, et al. Expires February 18, 2023 [Page 16]