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

[[e-mail]]

Hi Hang, 

Thanks for the comments.

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Shihang(Vincent) <shihang9=[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : lundi 26 février 2024 15:12
> À : [e-mail]; 'cats' <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : RE: [Cats] CATS WG Adoption poll for draft-ldbc-cats-framework
> 
> Yes, as a contributor who participates in the refinement of the
> document multiple times in github, I support the adoption.
> 
> Yes I have reviewed the document(again with refreshed eyes) and have
> some comments:
> 
> 1. Section 2 Terminology: "CATS Instance Selector ID (CIS-ID):  An
> identifier of a specific service contact instance."
> 
> It looks like we are using two terms (Instance Selector and service
> contact instance) to refer to the same thing.
> 
> 2. Section 3.4.1 Is service sites and service contact instance 1:1?

[Med] We do say the following in Section 2:

      A service can be accessed via multiple service contact instances
      running at the same or different locations (service sites).

 If
> yes, why do we need the concept of the service site? And the service
> site in this section looks  different with the term defined in Section
> 2:
> 
> Section 2: Service site:  A location that hosts the resources that are
> required to offer a service.
> 
>       A service site may be a node or a set of nodes.
> 
>       A CATS-serviced site is a service site that is connected to a
> CATS-Forwarder.
> 
> VS:
> 
> Section 3.4.1: Service sites are the premises that host a set of
> computing resources.
> 
> 3. Section 4.4: 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 (e.g., in terms of maximum latency) and the
> selected
>    service contact instance.
> 
> Is the objective function supposed to give the goal of the scheduling
> such as min(latency), min(standard deviation of site load) etc?

[Med] Yes, these are valid examples.

 If so,
> the information of the path and service contact instance is the input
> of the function not the function itself, right?

[Med] The computed path/service contact instance will be the output of the function.

> 
> Yes, I think the document is the right document to meet the milestone.
> It merges some content from other drafts. I think it reflects the
> community consensus of the CATS framework.
> 
> Thanks,
> Hang
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cats <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2024 12:44 AM
> 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%7C168d22ab249544b160ab08dc36d4e1f5%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48
> b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638445535153954797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW
> IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%
> 7C%7C&sdata=%2BkfIo4iUUfE8GML4RA4msM%2B5Cs1wuysV%2Bxp1aBqhG3E%3D&reser
> ved=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.