**Session Date/Time:** 07 Nov 2022 15:30

# can

## Summary
This meeting was a Birds of a Feather (BoF) session to discuss Computing-Aware Networking (CAN). The primary goals were to demonstrate the problem space, gauge community interest in solving it within the IETF, and define the scope of the work. The session included presentations on use cases, gap analysis, and a proposed charter, followed by an open discussion.  While there was interest in addressing the problem, there was no consensus that the routing area was the correct place to solve the problem.

## Key Discussion Points

*   **Use Cases:** Presentations highlighted use cases where considering computing resources alongside network conditions is critical for optimal traffic steering, particularly in edge computing scenarios (e.g., VR/AR, autonomous vehicles).
*   **Gap Analysis:** Existing solutions like DNS, load balancers, and ALTO were analyzed, revealing limitations in integrating computing resource conditions with network conditions for routing decisions.
*   **Proposed Charter:** The proposed charter focused on enabling Ingress nodes to consider computing-related resource conditions. It outlined work items including problem statement documentation, use case analysis, requirements definition, and suitability analysis of existing routing technologies.
*   **Scope Concerns:**  Questions arose regarding the scope, particularly whether it should be limited to single-operator domains and whether it should address scenarios involving multiple network and compute providers. There was significant concern voiced about the scope being too narrow and constrained if it only considered single domains.
*   **Routing vs. Application Layer:**  A major point of contention was whether the problem should be addressed at the routing layer or the application layer. Several participants argued that existing application-layer solutions (e.g., SD-WAN, VoIP) already address similar issues and that architectural implications of a routing-based approach needed to be carefully considered. Some participants suggested this discussion should occur in the application area, not the routing area.
*   **Charter Concerns:** Several participants stated the charter was solution-oriented, and not focused enough on defining the problem.

## Decisions and Action Items

*   **No consensus was reached to create a working group in the routing area** based on the current proposed charter.
*   The AD (Area Director) indicated that he would seek input from the applications area regarding potentially addressing the problem in that area.
*   The AD also indicated he would meet with the proponents to discuss the problem statement, potential scope, and potential approach forward.
*   The AD stated there was consensus that addressing the problem at the routing underlay was not desirable.

## Next Steps
*   The AD will consult with relevant stakeholders including the proponents.
*   Proponents are encouraged to solicit feedback from the applications area regarding the problem statement and potential solutions.
*   Further discussion on the mailing list is encouraged.