Re: [nmrg] RG Last Call on Autonomic Networking Use Case for Distributed Detection of SLA Violations

Jéferson Campos Nobre <jcnobre@inf.ufrgs.br> Wed, 01 February 2017 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jeferson.nobre@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26E44128B37 for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:40:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.416
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C5VWgtuw0Zla for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:40:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-f170.google.com (mail-yb0-f170.google.com [209.85.213.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A61651294DD for <nmrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:40:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 123so143424405ybe.3 for <nmrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:40:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=02bXpGsDRcrlek7yBszlglcoDigGbJdgod/N1cMXMTQ=; b=cB9XGDZSXAgI9FD5DYKlCkkPIkjSJseoLpoNgk4xOaCGtu6/kSKK98SZjQBU32cnLy iuQgNvuRbNqwnNDSkObAR7gRhw7/4SHCP+f9zfJ7rXcxfqqLMLUkw1YNoKawUpyGaqiq nrU9YUJwlYIWkMM++YVbj+y8cfc/opllY0H6W5/OtsxhUEIRGR+sx+CXmcdRtwhEGKC+ BbhndKzfJR1zIufTGK8WJOes4EokWIhNwqQQdRBQFMvDs+d/WX0jykikV4ekr9jS8lBo AfV1ypLW1tq7L7OGzIPmbQMJtAEgNyfp1YPQIUJlnSx2BjfwHrj6S7xiLw1PUlyUnbXJ riKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXINURtca7QT6iQJYsWL7WGzdAA95uv52Re8eXaLebFSxxD9nJPeY9+yJvHFKyGv7zJg/nczr3yb1POmhQ==
X-Received: by 10.37.165.35 with SMTP id h32mr1440180ybi.43.1485970813847; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:40:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <00bc01d27a9e$f787a890$e696f9b0$@clemm.org>
In-Reply-To: <00bc01d27a9e$f787a890$e696f9b0$@clemm.org>
From: Jéferson Campos Nobre <jcnobre@inf.ufrgs.br>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 17:40:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CABv6xLt51_n5vf7taWv=SYnJu+07uvGK+2aj_Q7Mj9nM57zyVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexander Clemm <ludwig@clemm.org>, nmrg@irtf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c19fae681930505477b8acc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmrg/nZaNuVyEjoraTtPXP2GzjZyQ57Y>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] RG Last Call on Autonomic Networking Use Case for Distributed Detection of SLA Violations
X-BeenThere: nmrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Management Research Group discussion list <nmrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/nmrg>, <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nmrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:nmrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg>, <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 17:40:30 -0000

Hi,
I am also a coauthor and support this draft to be advanced. In addition to
Alex's words, this I-D is one of the use cases presented in the UCAN BoF
(which ultimately leaded to ANIMA creation).
We, the authors, have plans to proceed the work on the I-D topic in ANIMA
(as an ASA), but current ANIMA charter is very clear about the work items,
thus we are waiting for the recharter.
Best.
Jéferson

Em seg, 30 de jan de 2017 às 00:17, Alexander Clemm <ludwig@clemm.org>
escreveu:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> As one of the coauthors, I support this draft to be advanced.  This is a
> fairly small draft, but I think one important issue that it raises, besides
> calling out the use case of needing to ensure that SLA violations are
> detected (maximizing the likelihood of detecting violated service level
> thresholds, as opposed to maximizing other things such as coverage),
> concerns the issue of distributing and decentralizing the logic for this
> across the network, as opposed to relying on central coordination.
> Clearly, this is an issue for potentially contentious debate, but I think
> it may be worthwhile having requirements for this possibility spelled out.
>
>
>
> --- Alex
> _______________________________________________
> nmrg mailing list
> nmrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg
>