Hello Eric, Thanks for this question.
As a use case and problem statement document, we did not link immediately to candidate technologies but left this to the gap analysis draft. Due to timing, that draft will be submitted today and should address your question on CATS but also covering other technologies, such as LISP. I realise that we refer to some technologies in the introduction (DNS, GSLB), mainly due to the more usual linkage on how a request to a service is usually realised (lookup plus transfer). We could expand the list there with clearer reference to the gap analysis draft, to avoid early confusion. Best Dirk From:Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> To:Dirk Trossen <dirk.tros...@huawei.com>;RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org> Date:2023-06-26 17:43:18 Subject:Re: New Version Notification for draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases-00.txt Hello Dirk, Obviously writing this email without any hat, I did not find any reference to the CATS WG [1] in the ROSA draft. While CATS has already a good direction on what to do, it seems to me that ROSA and CATS are addressing very similar problems. Do you intend to work within the CATS WG ? Else, what are the big differences ? Regards and thanks for educating me, -éric [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/cats/about/ On 26/06/2023, 16:08, "rtgwg on behalf of Dirk Trossen" <rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of dirk.trossen=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please find below the link to our submission of the ROSA use cases and problem statement draft. This draft has been split out of the originally single ROSA draft and is now revised in the use cases and includes, as the title suggests, the suggested problem statement for ROSA, replacing thus the longer draft originally submitted and presented to the RTG WG during IETF115 and 116. We plan on submitting the separate gap analysis and requirements as well as the architecture drafts tomorrow. We would welcome any comments from your side on this update, specifically on the use cases, the observed pain points and derived issues as well as the problem statement. For the discussions around ROSA and its related drafts, a non-WG mailing list at r...@ietf.org <mailto:r...@ietf.org> has been established. Please use this list for your comments so as to reduce traffic from the wider RTG WG list. In case you have not yet subscribed to this new list, we'd welcome you doing so! Looking forward to receiving your comments! Best, Dirk (on behalf of the co-authors) -----Original Message----- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org <mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org> <internet-dra...@ietf.org <mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>> Sent: 26 June 2023 15:53 To: Luis M. Contreras <luismiguel.contrerasmuri...@telefonica.com <mailto:luismiguel.contrerasmuri...@telefonica.com>>; Dirk Trossen <dirk.tros...@huawei.com <mailto:dirk.tros...@huawei.com>>; Jens Finkhaeuser <i...@interpeer.io <mailto:i...@interpeer.io>>; Luis Contreras <luismiguel.contrerasmuri...@telefonica.com <mailto:luismiguel.contrerasmuri...@telefonica.com>>; Paulo Mendes <paulo.men...@airbus.com <mailto:paulo.men...@airbus.com>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Dirk Trossen and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases Revision: 00 Title: Use Cases and Problem Statement for Routing on Service Addresses Document date: 2023-06-26 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 33 URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases-00.txt <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases-00.txt> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases/> Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases> Abstract: The proliferation of virtualization, microservices, and serverless architectures has made the deployment of services possible in more than one network location, alongside long practised replication within single network locations, such as within a CDN datacentre. This necessitates the potential need to coordinate the steering of (client-initiated) traffic towards different services and their deployed instances across the network. The term 'service-based routing' (SBR) captures the set of mechanisms for said traffic steering, positioned as an anycast problem, in that it requires the selection of one of the possibly many choices for service execution at the very start of a service transaction, followed by the transfer of packets to that chosen service endpoint. This document provides typical scenarios for service-based routing, particularly for which a more dynamic and efficient (in terms of both latency and signalling overhead) selection of suitable service execution endpoints would not exhibit the overheads and thus latency penalties experienced with existing explicit discovery methods. Related drafts introduce the design for an in-band service discovery method instead, named Routing on Service Addresses (ROSA), based on the insights from the use case and problem discussion in this draft. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
