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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:07:09PM +0100, Paul Aitken wrote:

[...]

You I think you are proposing that instructions received from
different Controllers must be kept separate and the MA must act
towards a Controller as if there are no other controllers. A potential
problem with this is that there are likely instructions and tests that
do impact each other through side effects.  

   If C1 schedules a test to be started every 5 min past the hour that
   requires no cross traffic while C2 schedules a test to measure
   video streaming capabilities during the interval 3-7 minutes past
   the hour, then C1 will be surprised that the scheduled test never
   executes or produces wrong results.

Do you require that the MA has the logic to reject one of the
instructions in such a case? Or do you expect that the Controllers
will simply accept that MAs may not do what they think they should be
doing? Or do you expect to have at least read access to all
instructions? Will we end up with an access control model to handle
things properly in a configurable manner (like we did with SNMP and
NETCONF)?

If the assumption is complete separation then I believe this is quite
a big one - in particular if I consider devices like home routers or
hardware probes of some bigger existing measurement platforms as
potential targets for this work (usuall small embedded Linux systems
running on cheap hardware).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>