Re: [Cats] CATS WG Adoption poll for draft-ldbc-cats-framework

[[e-mail]]

Hi Dirk, 

Good point. 

Feeding a C-PS with metrics alone may not be optimal for some service placement. So, the C-PS may need some "guidance" when computing paths as a function of the service. The intent of "objective functions" was to capture that.

Will think about how to make this clearer.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Dirk Trossen <dirk.trossen=[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : lundi 26 février 2024 16:35
> À : [e-mail]; 'cats' <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : RE: [Cats] CATS WG Adoption poll for draft-ldbc-cats-framework
> 
> All,
> 
> As a contributor to initial versions of this document and its
> iterations later on, I support WG adoption of this draft.
> 
> Building on previously made comments (specifically by Joel and Hang),
> I would like to also turn the attention to the objective function (or
> specific algorithm for processing). While the definition of specific
> algorithms is deemed out of scope for this document (and as Joel
> points out, for current solution proposals overall), I still wonder
> how the sentence "However, it is expected that a service request or
> local policy may feed the C-PS computation logic with Objective
> Functions that provide some information about the path
> characteristics" may look in real life? Is this an out-of-scope config
> issue (it 'somehow' makes it into the C-PS?)? Or could we see the
> definition of the objective function part of the metric distribution
> itself (if I distribute metrics, wouldn't I want to somehow link those
> to the usage within an objective function?). Given that this is a
> framework document, some words on this may be useful to add - note
> here that allowing to explicitly link metrics to objective functions
> (as part of the framework) is somehow the opposite of mandating
> specific algorithms being used (which I would not support, either, to
> avoid narrowing the solution space to a small set of such functions).
> 
> Anyhow, beyond this comment, I see this document capturing the
> evolving discussion and consensus in the wider WG quite well and would
> like it to progress more!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Dirk
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cats <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 23 February 2024 17:44
> To: 'cats' <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [Cats] CATS WG Adoption poll for draft-ldbc-cats-framework
> 
> Hi CATS,
> 
> We have had IPR disclosure responses from all authors and
> contributors.
> All but one have indicated "no IPR", with the remaining one stating
> that there is IPR, but the company is doing a detailed analysis before
> filing a disclosure.
> 
> The working group has a milestone for "Adopt the CATS Framework and
> Architecture document"
> 
> So, we are going to start a two week adoption poll for the draft. This
> will end on 9th March at 9am GMT.
> 
> Please state your opinions on whether or not this document should be
> adopted. Authors and Contributors are also welcome to state their
> opinions.
> Recall that the document does not have to be perfect at this point: we
> are looking for a starting point that can be taken up by the WG and
> edited until it is complete and ready.
> 
> A simple yes or no is helpful, but doesn't carry much weight.
> 
> So, if "yes":
> - have you reviewed the document?
> - do you have any comments or editorial suggestions?
> - do you think this is the right document to meet the milestone?
> - why do you think this is a good document?
> 
> And, if "no":
> - what are your concerns?
> - what is your proposal to meet the milestone?
> 
> If the current IPR situation is a significant concern to you, you are
> welcome to state that.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian (for the chairs)
> 
> --
> Cats mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcats&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%
> 40orange.com%7Caed3ed07716841fcbe7708dc36e089c7%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48
> b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638445585205809231%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW
> IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%
> 7C%7C&sdata=ruUFE361OQsdEgrTanMtVgXzjUn0xIbpC%2Fen8944C2o%3D&reserved=
> 0
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.