Re: [Anima] Review comments on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-api

"Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory)" <liguangpeng@huawei.com> Fri, 20 September 2019 07:11 UTC

Return-Path: <liguangpeng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB0A1200CE for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 00:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PRD1WZwKbYWN for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 00:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C6D41200B4 for <anima@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 00:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A0BD850959070146B058; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 08:11:38 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml718-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.69) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 08:11:38 +0100
Received: from lhreml718-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.69) by lhreml718-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.69) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 08:11:38 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.211) by lhreml718-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.69) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 08:11:37 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM533-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.252]) by DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.211]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:11:32 +0800
From: "Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory)" <liguangpeng@huawei.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Review comments on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-api
Thread-Index: AQHVbmERtpw7kJuDqkiyv51Nt/0PrKcyLc9A//+Ow4CAAMrXcIAAyzEAgADR6gA=
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 07:11:31 +0000
Message-ID: <6F4E6B0C717D4641A2B79BC1740D8CF4A7E25B1E@DGGEMM533-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <6F4E6B0C717D4641A2B79BC1740D8CF4A7E22578@DGGEMM533-MBX.china.huawei.com> <59be9ae2-9ccf-a5aa-1b70-5075574a05d3@gmail.com> <6F4E6B0C717D4641A2B79BC1740D8CF4A7E22D04@DGGEMM533-MBX.china.huawei.com> <bca8409b-8fc6-4a52-4b2c-27cfd63e1070@gmail.com> <6F4E6B0C717D4641A2B79BC1740D8CF4A7E2307E@DGGEMM533-MBX.china.huawei.com> <438f7146-45ce-396b-9005-849e15371a87@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <438f7146-45ce-396b-9005-849e15371a87@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.157.47]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/CrW_3ggcgmlONV806-g_PVGm04c>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Review comments on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-api
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 07:11:43 -0000

Hi Brian,

The same function can be executed in different threads simultaneous. How to map sessions to correct thread is responsibility of GRASP module(Maybe by an internal table consist of session id and function pointer). This is why I insist there is no need to use 'session_nonce' as parameter for GRASP module's API(When the GRASP is implemented with call-back mechanism). The workflow below shows how this work to call the same call-back-function A.
              _____________________________
  Messages:   |        GRASP Module       |
Session ID1 -------|-->thread1(call-back function A)----|--->ASA-1
Session ID 2-------|-->thread2(call-back function A)----|--->ASA-2
              |                     (GRASP API here)
              _____________________________

Best regards,
Guangpeng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 10:26 AM
> To: Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory)
> <liguangpeng@huawei.com>; anima@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Review comments on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-api
> 
> Hi Guangpeng,
> 
> I will try to explain it in much more detail in the new draft. You are quite correct
> that the ASA doesn't need to know any details of the session ID, but the
> problem comes when the same function is used as the callback for multiple
> sessions.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 19-Sep-19 18:34, Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory) wrote:
> >> Sorry to insist, but I really disagree. I'm thinking about how I
> >> would code the callback function for a resource allocator, and I'm
> >> sure it would need some sort of identifier for the particular
> >> resource request, since it might be handling many resource requests in
> parallel. In GRASP terms that is a session identifier.
> >
> > I agree there must be a session identifier in GRASP. However I think this draft
> is about to define the GRASP API for ASA. The ASA invokes functions through
> these APIs, and a grasp library implement APIs which includes encapsulating
> GRASP messages, send out them and wait for receiving response messages. So
> for call-back approach, all the magic is in the library, the library is responsible
> for mapping session identifier in messages to correct call-back threads. The
> ASA just need to tell library which call-back function would be executed when
> invoke a asynchronous API, the ASA knows nothing about the session identifier
> used in the messages, thus donot need 'session-nonce' parameter in the API.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Guangpeng
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 10:13 AM
> >> To: Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory)
> >> <liguangpeng@huawei.com>; anima@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: Review comments on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-api
> >>
> >> On 19-Sep-19 13:23, Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory)
> wrote:
> >>> Please see inline.
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 4:39 AM
> >>>> To: Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory)
> >>>> <liguangpeng@huawei.com>; anima@ietf.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: Review comments on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-api
> >>>>
> >>>> On 18-Sep-19 18:22, Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology
> >>>> Laboratory)
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi authors,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I read the draft. I think the API list for grasp is complete and
> >>>>> good. But I have
> >>>> some comments on section 2.2.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2.2. Asynchronous Operations
> >>>>>
> >>>>> '... there are two main techniques for such parallel operations:
> >>>> multi-threading, or a polling or 'event loop' structure.'
> >>>>>
> >>>>> According to my knowledge, 'multi-threading' is a different thing
> >>>>> with
> >>>> asynchronous programming mechanism. So I prefer to 'asynchronous
> >>>> programming mechanisms with multi-threading' here.
> >>>>
> >>>> OK, will rephrase.
> >>>>
> >>>>> The main techniques for asynchronous programming discussed in
> >>>>> draft should
> >>>> be 'polling', however, polling is not so efficient. The more
> >>>> efficient one is 'call back' mechanism.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, we certainly need to discuss callbacks. I'm not sure it is
> >>>> always more efficient, because that depends on the underlying
> >> implementation.
> >>>>
> >>> Agree that all performance rely on the implementation. Generally
> >>> saying,
> >> polling will consume CPU resource to query response again and again
> >> until timeout occurs. In other hand, every implement of agent based
> >> on polling mechanism library will couple with the library. That means
> >> most time different programmers will write the code respectively for
> >> the agent and library. It's more hard to guarantee achieve the best
> >> performance. Compared to polling, call back mechanism decouples the
> >> whole workflow. Only the library programmer need to care about the
> >> asynchronous part performance. The agent programmers just need to
> implement logics according to 'call back'
> >> mechanism then everyone can get the same performance provided by the
> >> same library.
> >>>
> >>>>> 'session_nonce' parameter may be useful for polling, but 'call
> >>>>> back function
> >>>> pointer( or reference in some programming language)' is normally
> >>>> used as parameter of invoked functions. All logics should be
> >>>> executed in call back functions which will be called when some
> >>>> events occur, for example receiving response message for the request, or
> message timeout.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. However, if you have two simultaneous negotiations, you will
> >>>> still need the session_nonce in the callback, I believe.
> >>>
> >>> Yes or not, I think. If the library is implemented based on call
> >>> back mechanism,
> >> the agent programmer don't need to know anything about
> >> 'session-nonce'. This means there needn't be this parameter in this
> >> kind of API. Indeed, the implementer of library need to consider
> >> 'session_nonce' carefully if its name is still 'session_nonce'. So,
> >> my opinion is 'session_nonce' is necessary parameter for polling-based API,
> but not for call-back-based API.
> >>
> >> Sorry to insist, but I really disagree. I'm thinking about how I
> >> would code the callback function for a resource allocator, and I'm
> >> sure it would need some sort of identifier for the particular
> >> resource request, since it might be handling many resource requests in
> parallel. In GRASP terms that is a session identifier.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>     Brian
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks very much,
> >>>>
> >>>>     Brian
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Guangpeng Li
> >>>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Guangpeng
> >>>