Re: [EME] First cut at eme requirements

Mark Baugher <mbaugher@cisco.com> Mon, 04 December 2006 23:24 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GrNAr-0007F6-0h; Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:24:37 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GrNAq-0007F0-8U for eme@irtf.org; Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:24:36 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GrNAo-0004tb-TQ for eme@irtf.org; Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:24:36 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2006 15:24:34 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,494,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="89737169:sNHT56403954"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kB4NOXhK013220; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:24:33 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kB4NOGjA028606; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:24:24 -0800
Received: from [192.168.0.11] ([10.21.113.83]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:24:24 -0800
In-Reply-To: <E6F7A586E0A3F94D921755964F6BE00672E288@EXCHANGE2.cs.cornell.edu>
References: <E6F7A586E0A3F94D921755964F6BE00672E288@EXCHANGE2.cs.cornell.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <1AD85053-3D01-4E49-88B8-F3B6D77AC9D8@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Mark Baugher <mbaugher@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [EME] First cut at eme requirements
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:24:22 -0800
To: Paul Francis <francis@cs.cornell.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2006 23:24:24.0532 (UTC) FILETIME=[55B23140:01C717FB]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2143; t=1165274673; x=1166138673; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mbaugher@cisco.com; z=From:=20Mark=20Baugher=20<mbaugher@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[EME]=20First=20cut=20at=20eme=20requirements |Sender:=20; bh=vuiitT9s7duTVuAY51uKQpjfO9JPgazMe9HsdFsTNMo=; b=bbYaA25gyR4Z0JXycVzsKIUtQBBgp5QGvAD5yirFK/zHno0fB3aUqkCGx1609FcXnxlCumaR 8YmCGTmzOs5nX5vXtYLHDwtqP2xZLj/ZVAZ4cCnKXXcyLLsKJmVmGeTc;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=mbaugher@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955
Cc: eme <eme@irtf.org>
X-BeenThere: eme@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: end-middle-end research group <eme.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme>, <mailto:eme-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/eme>
List-Post: <mailto:eme@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eme-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme>, <mailto:eme-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: eme-bounces@irtf.org

On Dec 4, 2006, at 8:38 AM, Paul Francis wrote:

>
> Good question.  Probably we should have a statement on scale (i.e.  
> global).
> As for the other two, I want to avoid "obvious" kinds of  
> requirement (i.e.
> "the system must be robust").  Having said that, I'm certainly  
> aware that one
> can construct quite specific robustness statements ("the system  
> must be able
> to tolerate the loss of up to three servers with zero measureable  
> performance
> degradation") that can have a major impact on system design.
>
> But am open to discussion on this.  Do you have any thoughts on how  
> such
> requirements would be crafted?

Here's what I had in mind: To the extent that the middle box is  
providing services to endpoints and is incident to the path between  
(or among) the endpoints, what happens to end-to-end connectivity  
when the path changes to use other middle boxes?  I think that a  
robust solution would not disrupt the end-to-end communication as  
needed state is established in different middle boxes.

Mark

>
> PF
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baugher [mailto:mbaugher@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:47 PM
> To: Paul Francis
> Cc: eme
> Subject: Re: [EME] First cut at eme requirements
>
> What are your thoughts on robustness, scalability and fault-recovery
> requirements?
>
> Mark
>
> On Nov 28, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Paul Francis wrote:
>
>>
>> Gang,
>>
>> Attached is a rough draft of a requirements document for EME.   
>> This is
>> meant to be the union of the requirements that Handley and I  
>> presented
>> at the BOF in Montreal.  The goal here is to be ambitious but
>> realistic, and to try to limit ourselves to basic and important
>> requirements.  This really is a rough draft, and is meant to motivate
>> and focus discussion.
>>
>> Mark W, could you post on the wiki when you get a chance?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> PF (and Saikat)
>> <eme-requirements.txt>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EME mailing list
>> EME@irtf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme

_______________________________________________
EME mailing list
EME@irtf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme