[Cats] Some comments on draft-zhangb-cats-service-metrics-op-03
沈博文 <shenbowen@stu.hit.edu.cn> Tue, 18 August 2026 01:56 UTC
Return-Path: <shenbowen@stu.hit.edu.cn>
X-Original-To: cats@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: cats@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF65B12B573D2 for <cats@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2026 18:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1787018185; bh=dwob2rZ3PoBvifPfmL3PgojPRe1RSzydwcLbuQPBwIM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject; b=BdGZm3AOg+TT0RY5v2dV+6F2qHzljdI1RdaoZFlgQsRQlb2sr6z35SYD+Ac10JA7U B8ixTDBjJ7bP3ozZL7R4PmbLh5fD+I/k2iRFemqUDrJE1DhF+171a5FWzjjAXP0j2F naWLwtNRUEEX03dy5X7+2cd+T/1ifSn6q9I4fQZ8=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.496
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id isRPbeTT-r6l for <cats@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2026 18:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.hit.edu.cn (mail.hit.edu.cn [202.118.224.233]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2928612B573C6 for <cats@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2026 18:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shenbowen$stu.hit.edu.cn ( [2408:843f:4c60:1741:7c12:45ff:fe8f:54a6] ) by ajax-webmail-Mail-app2 (Coremail) ; Tue, 18 Aug 2026 09:56:02 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
X-Originating-IP: [2408:843f:4c60:1741:7c12:45ff:fe8f:54a6]
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 09:56:02 +0800
X-CM-HeaderCharset: UTF-8
From: 沈博文 <shenbowen@stu.hit.edu.cn>
To: zhangb@pcl.ac.cn
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Coremail Webmail Server Version 2024.1-cmXT5 build 20240729(6d2960c6) Copyright (c) 2002-2026 www.mailtech.cn mispb-0670b814-d594-4118-92e0-dc1bc2f00e12-hit.edu.cn
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_52539_1137870280.1787018162254"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <38923532.3b16.1a01295304e.Coremail.shenbowen@stu.hit.edu.cn>
X-Coremail-Locale: zh_CN
X-CM-TRANSID: DDuowACXn1Oyu4Nq0_3vBA--.46710W
X-CM-SenderInfo: 2suemkarqwmqhvwxhxllwovvfxof0/1tbiAQQDDWqCxIEO4AAAsI
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Ur529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7IcSsGvfJ3iIAIbVAYjsxI4VWxJw CS07vEb4IE77IF4wCS07vE1I0E4x80FVAKz4kxMIAIbVAFxVCaYxvI4VCIwcAKzIAtYxBI daVFxhVjvjDU=
Message-ID-Hash: 63XPONAXTY7AF3PZFXDFFCNE6HGGN36H
X-Message-ID-Hash: 63XPONAXTY7AF3PZFXDFFCNE6HGGN36H
X-MailFrom: shenbowen@stu.hit.edu.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: cats@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Cats] Some comments on draft-zhangb-cats-service-metrics-op-03
List-Id: "Computing-Aware Traffic Steering (CATS)" <cats.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cats/Uld4sicDCxvM7dbr7gWiIHw2j_o>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cats>
List-Help: <mailto:cats-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:cats-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:cats@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cats-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cats-leave@ietf.org>
Hi Authors, I just reviewed your draft draft-zhangb-cats-service-metrics-op-03“Computing Service Metric Definitions and Operation under CATS”. I have a few suggestions regarding the content in this document: First, the Computing Service Table and Network Service Table are central to the proposed operation, but their contents and relationship could be described more clearly. Second, it would be helpful to provide a few more operational examples to illustrate the expected behavior in different scenarios. Another point concerns failure handling. The draft could explain what happens when no candidate satisfies a request, or when a selected service instance becomes unavailable. Finally, the draft states that there are no IANA actions at this time. However, the document defines several new metrics with distinct semantics. Please clarify whether identifiers for these metrics need to be registered in this document or in a companion document. Overall, I think the draft provides a clear and operationally meaningful approach for using computing service information in CATS. The current structure and examples make the proposal easy to follow, and I believe it is a good basis for further WG discussion. Best regards, Bowen Shen