> From: Vicraj Thomas <
vthomas@...>
> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:09:53 -0600
> To: Jeff Chase <
chase@...>, Harry Mussman <
hmussman@...>
> Cc: Aaron Falk <
falk@...>, ibaldin <
ibaldin@...>
> Subject: Re: two issues of terminology
>
> Jeff,
>
> I've been using the term "Experimenter Tools" to refer to any tool available
> to the experimenter that makes it easier to use GENI from experimentation.
> These include tools such as:
> - Resource discovery tools
> - Provisioning tools. These are the first category of tool you mention
> in your email and is used to program components: Load software into
> components and configure them. Raven is an example of such a tool for the
> PlanetLab control framework.
> - Experiment control tools: These are the second category of tools you
> mention in your email. GUSH is an example of such a tool.
>
> I include other tools under "Experimenter Tools" such as:
> - Debugging tools
> - Collaboration tools for use by researchers based in different
> locations
> - Search tools to find resources
>
> < Vic
>
>
>
> On Feb 17 12:41 PM, "Jeff Chase" <
chase@...> wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Two quick questions/proposals on terminology. These might be comments
>> for the CF requirements doc. But they have also come up in drafting
>> spiral 2 proposals.
>>
>> Both deal with what has been called "experimenter tools" or "experiment
>> control tools" in various GENI docs.
>>
>> (1) There is a useful distinction between code that runs inside a slice
>> vs. code that runs outside a slice. Code that runs inside a slice
>> falls under the category of "component programming" and the
>> programmability requirement (S 5.5.5 in the CF requirements doc). The
>> question is: do we have an accepted name for toolkits or other
>> off-the-shelf software artifacts whose purpose is to support
>> easy/flexible programming of various components? An example from the
>> literature might be Click or Ilia's SILO framework. The specific
>> question that drove this concerns whether it is right to refer to SILO
>> as "experimenter tools". I would argue that we should not consider
>> these as "experimenter tools" so as not to blur this useful distinction.
>>
>> (2) I think we have reached some kind of consensus (within services-wg
>> and I think in my discussions with GPO folks) for a first-class
>> entity/actor that controls and monitors a slice. I think Gush is
>> perhaps the best-known example. The defining element that makes such an
>> entity "first-class" is that it is persistent so that other actors in
>> the control framework, or slivers in its slice, can send unsolicited
>> messages/notifications to it. And it may respond by taking autonomous
>> actions to control the slice on behalf of an experimenter. Previously
>> we haven't had a name for this entity. I propose that it be called
>> "slice controller". (Note: in Orca-world we presume/require/support
>> such a beast: we have called it "service manager" since the SHARP days
>> in 2003, and then started talking about "guest controller" plugin to the
>> SM that implements a control policy.) The specific question that drove
>> this is whether we will be understood by GPO if we say "slice
>> controller". I think David Irwin had told me he though Harry's
>> preferred term was "experiment controller", but I'm not seeing any
>> "controller" term now in the CF req doc.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
