Subject: [icnrg] Review of "Using ICN in Disaster Scenarios" (draft-irtf-icnrg-disaster-01)

From: "Rahman, Akbar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 18:35:20 +0000

Hello Chairs and all,

I took an action at the Chicago meeting to provide a review for:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-disaster-01

Following are my comments:

1)     General

·        Overall, I found the draft useful and well written, but it still requires further updates (e.g. as already self-identified at the end of the key section 3.2).

·        Should the title include “Research Directions” or “Research Challenges”?  I’m not adamant on this but just got the feeling that perhaps this would make the title more descriptive.  Just a thought and I will leave it to the authors to decide.

2)     Section 2 (Disaster Scenarios)

·        In paragraph 1 or 2, there should probably be an explicit reference to the existing cellular network disaster SMS notification mechanism (instead of just a general mention to “mobile phones”).  This is, for example, the most commonly used notification method for disaster scenarios today and should be referenced.  There are many pointers on the Web for this and here is one (randomly selected):

o http://thehub.smsglobal.com/emergency-sms-alerts-notifications

3)     Section 3.1 (High-Level Research Challenges)

·        For the decentralized authentication bullet.  Should note that cellular SMS notification does not require central authentication.  Also, most cellular systems allow emergency calls (e.g. 911) without full authentication.

4)     Section 3.2 (How ICN can be Beneficial)

·        The section seems to be a nice listing of general ICN properties, but somehow lacking further specificity regarding relation to disaster scenarios in many of the bullets.  Perhaps one way to correct that is to have some further correlation between section 3.2 or 3.1.  For example:

o It is not clear how routing-by-name (section 3.2) will overcome congested networks (section 3.1)

5)     Section 5 (Solution Design)

·        Overall, very nice section!

·        One of the common-sense requirements for disaster scenarios is to be able to make emergency calls (voice/VoIP/Video).  How this is supported should be clarified in this section.

·        There was references for most bullets except for the 1st (data mules).  Was there a reason for this?

6)     Section 6 (Conclusion)

·        Should clarify if more standardization work (e.g. IETF) is required to enable the ideas in section 5

·        Also, are there still open research areas (or is it as per the last sentence which says concrete solution examples are already there – and so no more research needs to be done)?

Best Regards,

Akbar

<http://ir.interdigital.com/File/Index?KeyFile=37447876>

This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of any privilege or confidentiality obligation. If you received this communication in error, please do not review, copy or distribute it, notify me immediately by email, and delete the original message and any attachments. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message or any attachment should be construed as a digital or electronic signature.