Re: [Openv6] 答复: Another question: the name of the functionalities

["Jose Saldana" <[e-mail]>]

Fully agree.
 
Best regards,
 
Jose
 
De: Openv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de
[e-mail]
Enviado el: martes, 10 de junio de 2014 22:57
Para: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Asunto: Re: [Openv6] 答复: Another question: the name of the functionalities
 
Hi Jose,
 
Thank you very much!
I agree with you that the used terminology in all drafts needs to be clear!
A better terminology section will be included in a next version of the
problelmet statement draft!
However, please note that what I meant in the previous email is that it is
difficult and it is not needed to find only one term/name that incorporates
all the capabilities that have an impact on APONF.
 
In order to be clear we need to list all the capabilities (not only an
aggregated one) that have an impact on the mechanisms and solutions that
will be worked out by APONF.
 
Best regards,
Georgios
 
  _____  

Van: Jose Saldana [[e-mail]]
Verzonden: dinsdag 10 juni 2014 10:16
Aan: Karagiannis, G. (EWI); [e-mail]
Onderwerp: RE: [Openv6] 答复: Another question: the name of the
functionalities
Hi, Georgios. My idea is: the IETF is a standardization body, so the terms
do matter. One has to be consistent and to clearly establish a “glossary of
terms” to be used always the same way.
 
In addition, it could be a very good exercise to try to summarize the
objective of APONF in a single sentence. Something like this (from the draft
charter):
 
“The main goal of APONF is to specify the application-based policy
protocol(s), mechanisms and models required  by transport applications to
easily, accurately, and efficiently select and use the available
communication network capabilities, i.e., network management and/or traffic
policies.”
 
So here Tina talks about “network management and/or traffic policies.”
 
 
Jose
 
De: [e-mail] [mailto: <mailto:[e-mail]>
[e-mail]] 
Enviado el: lunes, 09 de junio de 2014 19:38
Para: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Asunto: RE: [Openv6] 答复: Another question: the name of the functionalities
 
Hi Jose,
 
Thanks for the comments!
It is somehow difficult to find the right name for all these terms, since
these capabilities can be network management capabilities, traffic
conditioning capabilities, traffic routiong capabilities, etc.
 
I am not sure if it is needed to find just one name for these terms!
 
Best regards,
Georgios
 
 
  _____  

发件人: Openv6 [[e-mail]] 代表 Jose Saldana [jsaldana@unizar.
es]
发送时间: 2014年6月9日 23:31
收件人: [e-mail]
主题: [Openv6] Another question: the name of the functionalities
Hi,
 
Another question is how to name the set of functionalities you are
considering in APONF:
 
- In the first paragraph, they are called “traffic capabilities”: “ the
communication network to apply the following different network management
and/or traffic capabilities”
 
- Later, they are called “traffic policies”: “Examples of such network
management and traffic policies that are considered by APONF are the
following”
 
 
I think that finding a good name grouping these actions is crucial:
 
Manage dynamically network semantics
Orchestrate dynamically virtualized functions 
Permit or Block or Redirect the traffic
Log the traffic 
Copy the traffic 
Set the traffic 
Mark the traffic
 
Are they traffic policies? Network actions? Network functionalities? Network
capabilities? Traffic capabilities? Network management actions?
 
 
What do you think?
 
Jose Saldana