Re: [lmap] Feedback on draft-eardley-lmap-terminology

[Paul Aitken <[e-mail]>]

Marcelo,

> El 24/07/13 17:00, Paul Aitken escribió:
>> Dan,
>>
>>> The single controller (for a given MA) key assumption is not 
>>> mentioned by draft-akhter-lmap-framework. Why?
>>
>> The only key assumption (in the LMAP WG charter) is "that the 
>> measurement system is under the control of a single organization".
>>
>> Given that assumption, we don't see the necessity of restricting an 
>> MA to a single controller.
>> This allows for redundant / backup controllers, or a controller cloud 
>> (thinking of rserpool, eg).
>
>
> Right, i would express that each MA is under one controller at any 
> point in time. It can change controller (i.e. backup) but i think 
> having more than one controller controlling simoultaneously one MA 
> introduces a lot of complexity and i am not sure it is worth it.
>
> MAkes sense?

Since the system is under control of a single organization, it's up to 
that organisation how to organise their controllers and MA's. We should 
make it possible for them to do what they want, rather than making it 
possible to only do what we think is best.

MA's should do what they're requested by controllers as best as they're 
able. I can't immediately think of a situation where an MA could be 
given conflicting instructions. However, if conflicts are possible the 
MA could enqueue the requested tests to be run sequentially to avoid 
inter-test conflict. If conflict can arise from two controllers, then it 
can also arise by requesting the same tests from a single controller - 
so designing this limitation into the system gains nothing.

P.