Re: [cso] Directional Changes for CSO work

Daniele Ceccarelli <> Tue, 14 September 2010 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE743A69C0 for <>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.972
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.972 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO=2.275, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE=1, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MY_CID_AND_ARIAL2=1.46, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_GIF_ATTACH=1.42]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sPRZxzKV+TNu for <>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA6F3A6839 for <>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7c79ae000006ec4-b1-4c8f97faddb7
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 68.94.28356.AF79F8C4; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:42:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:42:50 +0200
From: Daniele Ceccarelli <>
To: Young Lee <>, "" <>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:42:48 +0200
Thread-Topic: [cso] Directional Changes for CSO work
Thread-Index: ActQXxA88X5W1POYR0euIugga8KXkQDw/PPw
Message-ID: <>
References: <009b01cb505f$109b9ce0$>
In-Reply-To: <009b01cb505f$109b9ce0$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_B5630A95D803744A81C51AD4040A6DAA0153CEC9ESESSCMS0360eem_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [cso] Directional Changes for CSO work
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: This list is for pre-WG technical discussion of cross stratum optimization <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:43:03 -0000

Hi Young,

the "why needed" sections of both documents are not very clear in my opinion. Could you please better clafiry what is needed that is not actually covered or that cannot be covered by the PCE wg?

>From my undestanding it seems that most of the extensions could be covered by the PCE WG, but maybe i'm wrong.

Many thanks and best regards


From: [] On Behalf Of Young Lee
Sent: giovedì 9 settembre 2010 22.39
Subject: [cso] Directional Changes for CSO work


After a couple of conference calls with Ron Bonica (OPS AD) and Dan Romanscanu (OPS AD), we narrowed down the scope of work and have broken the CSO work into two pieces:

(i) Network Aware Application Mobility (NAAM)

(ii) Network Stratum Query (NS Query)

Please see the draft charter descriptions in the attachment.

Depending on the result of the IESG approval, we might pursue these two pieces as separate work items down the road if both are approved.

Please also note that among many potential CSO applicability, we have narrowed the work in the context of Data Centers.  The following diagram depicts the contexts of both NAAM and NS Query.


If you are still interested in the new scope, we'd appreciate your comments on the charter descriptions or any other related matters.

Best Regards,