Subject: [cso] Directional Changes for CSO work

From: Young Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:39:13 -0500

Hi, 

After a couple of conference calls with Ron Bonica (OPS AD) and Dan
Romanscanu (OPS AD), we narrowed down the scope of work and have broken the
CSO work into two pieces:

(i) Network Aware Application Mobility (NAAM)  

(ii) Network Stratum Query (NS Query)

Please see the draft charter descriptions in the attachment. 

Depending on the result of the IESG approval, we might pursue these two
pieces as separate work items down the road if both are approved. 

Please also note that among many potential CSO applicability, we have
narrowed the work in the context of Data Centers.  The following diagram
depicts the contexts of both NAAM and NS Query. 

If you are still interested in the new scope, we'd appreciate your comments
on the charter descriptions or any other related matters. 

Thanks. 

Best Regards,
Young

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:18:15 -0700

Hi Young and all, from the point of view of finding out what the 
network has to offer the application (or what it is currently providing) 
the emphasis on data centers seems appropriate.
It seems to me that we potentially have three networking scenarios of 
interest:
(1) Internal to the data center (between processors, storage, external 
communications) (intra-data center)
(2) Between data centers (for larger distributed applications, for 
migration, data distribution, etc..) (inter-data center)
(3) Between end users and data centers
These three areas also represent sucessively larger network contexts 
where we would have limits on what we can expect (or ask) of the 
underlying network.
Is this in line with what folks are thinking? Young, I'll separately 
send you some possible additional text on the NS Query document.

Cheers

Greg B.

On 9/9/2010 1:39 PM, Young Lee wrote:
> Romanscanu (OPS AD), we narrowed down the scope of work and have 
> broken the CSO work into two pieces:
>
> Depending on the result of the IESG approval, we might pursue these 
> two pieces as separate work items down the road if both are approved.
>
> narrowed the work in the context of Data Centers.  The following 
> diagram depicts the contexts of both NAAM and NS Query.
>
> If you are still interested in the new scope, we'd appreciate your 
> comments on the charter descriptions or any other related matters.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
> Young
>

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

---

From: Ning So <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:19:57 -0700 (PDT)

Greg,

I agree with your view.

Ning

________________________________
From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Fri, September 10, 2010 10:18:15 AM
Subject: Re: [cso] Directional Changes for CSO work

Hi Young and all, from the point of view of finding out what the network has to 
offer the application (or what it is currently providing) the emphasis on data 
centers seems appropriate.
It seems to me that we potentially have three networking scenarios of interest:
(1) Internal to the data center (between processors, storage, external 
communications) (intra-data center)
(2) Between data centers (for larger distributed applications, for migration, 
data distribution, etc..) (inter-data center)
(3) Between end users and data centers 
These three areas also represent sucessively larger network contexts where we 
would have limits on what we can expect (or ask) of the underlying network.
Is this in line with what folks are thinking? Young, I'll separately send you 
some possible additional text on the NS Query document.

Cheers

Greg B.

> 
>After a couple of conference calls with Ron Bonica (OPS AD) and Dan Romanscanu 
>(OPS AD), we narrowed down the scope of work and have broken the CSO work into 
>two pieces:
> 
>Depending on the result of the IESG approval, we might pursue these two pieces 
>as separate work items down the road if both are approved. 
>
> 
>Please also note that among many potential CSO applicability, we have narrowed 
>the work in the context of Data Centers.  The following diagram depicts the 
>contexts of both NAAM and NS Query. 
>
> 
> 
>If you are still interested in the new scope, we’d appreciate your comments on 
>the charter descriptions or any other related matters. 
>
>Thanks. 
> 
>Best Regards,
>Young

--  =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, 
Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

---

From: Young Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:12:56 -0500

Greg and Ning,

I concur with you. Please see in-line for my comments.

Thanks.

Young

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ning
So
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 10:20 AM
To: Greg Bernstein; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [cso] Directional Changes for CSO work

Greg,

I agree with your view.

Ning

  _____  

Hi Young and all, from the point of view of finding out what the network has
to offer the application (or what it is currently providing) the emphasis on
data centers seems appropriate.
It seems to me that we potentially have three networking scenarios of
interest:
(1) Internal to the data center (between processors, storage, external
communications) (intra-data center)

YOUNG>> I think L2 LAN network connecting servers/applications (Ethernet
Bridge and L2 network protocols) can be a constraining factor for user
experience. We tend to overlook intra-data center networking issue, which
needs to be factored in overall quality of experience estimation.  

YOUNG>> Application mobility between data center can be very dynamic in
nature. Application profile needs to be conveyed to networks (such as
security level on sharing, b/w, latency, etc) clearly so that networks would
be able to route the application successfully meeting the application needs.

YOUNG>> Perhaps this is between end-users to data centers through networks
---Oscar brought up an important issue on if "user profile" (including the
contents, preference in case of gaming server) needs to be conveyed to
application and network and if the protocol scope should include this
aspect. I think Oscar will bring this issue to the mailing list next week.  

These three areas also represent sucessively larger network contexts where
we would have limits on what we can expect (or ask) of the underlying
network.
Is this in line with what folks are thinking? Young, I'll separately send
you some possible additional text on the NS Query document.

Cheers

Greg B.

Hi, 

 

Thanks. 

Best Regards,
Young

---

From: Daniele Ceccarelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:42:48 +0200

Hi Young,

the "why needed" sections of both documents are not very clear in my opinion. Could you please better clafiry what is needed that is not actually covered or that cannot be covered by the PCE wg?

>From my undestanding it seems that most of the extensions could be covered by the PCE WG, but maybe i'm wrong.

Many thanks and best regards

Daniele

________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Young Lee
Sent: giovedì 9 settembre 2010 22.39
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [cso] Directional Changes for CSO work

Hi,

After a couple of conference calls with Ron Bonica (OPS AD) and Dan Romanscanu (OPS AD), we narrowed down the scope of work and have broken the CSO work into two pieces:

Depending on the result of the IESG approval, we might pursue these two pieces as separate work items down the road if both are approved.

Please also note that among many potential CSO applicability, we have narrowed the work in the context of Data Centers.  The following diagram depicts the contexts of both NAAM and NS Query.

If you are still interested in the new scope, we'd appreciate your comments on the charter descriptions or any other related matters.
Thanks.

Best Regards,
Young

---

From: Young Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:15:59 -0500

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for your comment. 

The actual work on PCE will be worked on close collaboration between the PCE
WG and this “WG” (assuming this will be a new WG). This WG is focused on the
Query that tells “Network Stratum” (PCE is one of the component in the
network stratum), for instance, to estimate latency between point A and B,
then PCE might be used to estimate such request, or some other mechanism
similar to PCE. I believe this particular mechanism is already in place in
PCE. But how PCE communicates with the NCG needs to be collaborated between
PCE WG and this work. Another example is how PCE would provide virtual
network topology to application stratum is subject to the interest of the
PCE WG. 

In a nutshell, NS Query triggers many works in the network stratum in the
area of policy, network management, PCE, etc. 

I will look at “why needed” sections of both documents and clarify them. If
you can suggest some text on that, that will be also great. 

Best Regards,

Young

  _____  

From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:43 AM
To: Young Lee; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [cso] Directional Changes for CSO work

Hi Young,

the "why needed" sections of both documents are not very clear in my
opinion. Could you please better clafiry what is needed that is not actually
covered or that cannot be covered by the PCE wg?

Daniele

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Young
Lee
Sent: giovedì 9 settembre 2010 22.39
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [cso] Directional Changes for CSO work

Hi, 

 

If you are still interested in the new scope, we’d appreciate your comments
on the charter descriptions or any other related matters. 

Thanks. 

Best Regards,
Young