Re: [alto] Finishing milestones: Status of drafts?
Hi Vijay, The draft will be ready for WGLC on July 13. We will make sure to achieve this goal. Thanks a lot! Richard On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 12:30 PM Vijay Gurbani wrote: > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 1:01 PM Y. Richard Yang wrote: > >> Hi Vijay, Jan, >> >> Let me give some update on the performance metrics. [...] We will upload >> an update by the end of next week before the July 13 deadline.Do >> > > Dear Richard: Thanks. Do you think that the draft will be ready for WGLC > on Jul 13? If not, what do you think is holding it up? > > Thanks, > > - vijay > -- Richard ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
Re: [alto] Finishing milestones: Status of drafts?
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 1:01 PM Y. Richard Yang wrote: > Hi Vijay, Jan, > > Let me give some update on the performance metrics. [...] We will upload > an update by the end of next week before the July 13 deadline.Do > Dear Richard: Thanks. Do you think that the draft will be ready for WGLC on Jul 13? If not, what do you think is holding it up? Thanks, - vijay ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
Re: [alto] Finishing milestones: Status of drafts?
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:30 AM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote: > Dear Vijay, Jan and all, > > > > Here are some updates regarding the Unified Property and Path Vector > drafts. > > > [...] We plan to submit an updated version by July 13th on which we will > request a WGLC. > > Dear Sabine: OK, thanks. Please do make sure that the draft is out by the date indicated, or a couple of days earlier, so we can schedule a WGLC. FYI: the ALTO meeting is scheduled for Mon, Jul 27. Thanks, - vijay ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
Re: [alto] Finishing milestones: Status of drafts?
Hi Vijay, Jan, Let me give some update on the performance metrics. We continued our discussions on this document. For example, during the weekly meeting yesterday, some of the authors (Luis, Sabine, and I) discussed the potential impact of Prometheus ( https://prometheus.io/docs/prometheus/latest/), which is used in related context, on the draft. For example, we looked at the list of statistics from Prometheus (min, max, avg, stddev, stdvar, quintile, topk, bottomk) to compare with our list. We found that there are design points from Prometheus which we may consider in future work but keep the simplicity of the current design. We will upload an update by the end of next week before the July 13 deadline. Any comments are greatly welcome! Richard On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 11:42 PM Vijay Gurbani wrote: > Folks: There are three drafts that we need to progress: path vector, > performance metrics, and unified properties. > > Jan and I will like to get a clear idea from the authors of each of these > documents as to where things stand. > > The WG list has been rather silent on progress on the drafts. For unified > properties, Sabine had posted an email on Jun-10, but there has not been > anything else on that draft since. > > Performance metrics saw some action on the WG list on May-17, but that is > it. > > I don't see anything for path vector. > > Can we kindly have the authors of the draft please put forward where they > are and whether the work is done enough to start WGLC on them.. Please do > so ASAP. > > Thanks, > > - vijay > ___ > alto mailing list > alto@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > -- Richard ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
Re: [alto] Finishing milestones: Status of drafts?
Dear Vijay, Jan and all, Here are some updates regarding the Unified Property and Path Vector drafts. Upon discussions during our weekly ALTO syncup calls, have adapted the Path-Vector (PV) design so as to enable standalone Property queries on particular ANEs. Up to now, the PV draft says: "the scope of an ANE Name is limited to the Path Vector response." One reason is that an (ALTO) Client is not necessarily interested in details on ANEs on a path but only needs to know their existence and impact on the connection performance. While ANEs returned by a PV response do not exist beyond this response, some of them may represent entities that are persistent because it is useful for Servers and Clients to occasionally query properties without caring about the path that traverses them. In this case, they have a persistent ID that can be registered in a property map, together with properties. When a Client wants to query such properties on a persistent ANE, it needs 2 informations: - persistent ID of the ANE, - Name of the Property map defining properties on this ANE. These 2 informations are assembled so as to form an entity ID format with the format specified in the Unified Property (UP) draft and that can be directly utilized for entity property queries. The updates to support such a functionality are being integrated in both PV and UP draft. Additionally, the UP draft introduces the field of "defining resource" in the specification of entity domains and registrations at the IANA. The "defining resource" specifies where an entity is being defined and applies to all entity domains. We plan to submit an updated version by July 13th on which we will request a WGLC. Thanks, Sabine From: alto On Behalf Of Vijay Gurbani Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 5:42 AM To: IETF ALTO Subject: [alto] Finishing milestones: Status of drafts? Folks: There are three drafts that we need to progress: path vector, performance metrics, and unified properties. Jan and I will like to get a clear idea from the authors of each of these documents as to where things stand. The WG list has been rather silent on progress on the drafts. For unified properties, Sabine had posted an email on Jun-10, but there has not been anything else on that draft since. Performance metrics saw some action on the WG list on May-17, but that is it. I don't see anything for path vector. Can we kindly have the authors of the draft please put forward where they are and whether the work is done enough to start WGLC on them.. Please do so ASAP. Thanks, - vijay ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
[alto] Finishing milestones: Status of drafts?
Folks: There are three drafts that we need to progress: path vector, performance metrics, and unified properties. Jan and I will like to get a clear idea from the authors of each of these documents as to where things stand. The WG list has been rather silent on progress on the drafts. For unified properties, Sabine had posted an email on Jun-10, but there has not been anything else on that draft since. Performance metrics saw some action on the WG list on May-17, but that is it. I don't see anything for path vector. Can we kindly have the authors of the draft please put forward where they are and whether the work is done enough to start WGLC on them. Please do so ASAP. Thanks, - vijay ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
