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

[<[e-mail]>]

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:[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 [[e-mail]]
发送时间: 2014年6月9日 23:31
收件人: [e-mail]<mailto:[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