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

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 <cats-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2024 12:44 AM
To: 'cats' <cats@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ldbc-cats-framework@ietf.org; cats-chairs@ietf.org
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
Cats@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cats