« Return to Thread: clearinghouses (or not)
Re: clearinghouses (or not)
by Larry Peterson
::
Rate this Message:
I think we're roughly on the same page, but a point of
clarification on this last issue. Even when there's an SM
between the user and the set of aggregates, we also
believe in the machine language model for the rspec.
The only difference is whether the rspec is defined for
a single aggregate or for a set of aggregates.
The SM very broadly defined (i.e., to include layers of
functionality beyond the slice interface) might very well
add capabilities beyond this "machine language" but at
that point I wouldn't call it an rspec any more (just to keep
terminology clear).
>
>> and MOST IMPORTANTLY, we remove the
>> burden of creating a one-size-fits-all SM (and a one-size-fits-all rspec
>> that describes to that SM exactly what the user wants).
>
> Totally agree - particularly with the RSpec, I've always believed the
> story we talked about some time ago that the RSpec is something of a
> "machine language", that are about describing resources, not experiments
> - and thus it is entirely appropriate for an SM to export some higher
> level topology/experiment description language to users (like, say, and
> NS file :), and this gets "compiled" in some way to RSpec to request the
> resources necessary to run the experiment. (Of course, if the
> higher-level language is describing more than just resources, not all of
> it will end up in RSpecs)
>
> --
> /-----------------------------------------------------------
> | Robert P Ricci <ricci@...> | <ricci@...>
> | Research Associate, University of Utah Flux Group
> | www.flux.utah.edu | www.emulab.net
> \-----------------------------------------------------------
>
_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg
clarification on this last issue. Even when there's an SM
between the user and the set of aggregates, we also
believe in the machine language model for the rspec.
The only difference is whether the rspec is defined for
a single aggregate or for a set of aggregates.
The SM very broadly defined (i.e., to include layers of
functionality beyond the slice interface) might very well
add capabilities beyond this "machine language" but at
that point I wouldn't call it an rspec any more (just to keep
terminology clear).
>
>> and MOST IMPORTANTLY, we remove the
>> burden of creating a one-size-fits-all SM (and a one-size-fits-all rspec
>> that describes to that SM exactly what the user wants).
>
> Totally agree - particularly with the RSpec, I've always believed the
> story we talked about some time ago that the RSpec is something of a
> "machine language", that are about describing resources, not experiments
> - and thus it is entirely appropriate for an SM to export some higher
> level topology/experiment description language to users (like, say, and
> NS file :), and this gets "compiled" in some way to RSpec to request the
> resources necessary to run the experiment. (Of course, if the
> higher-level language is describing more than just resources, not all of
> it will end up in RSpecs)
>
> --
> /-----------------------------------------------------------
> | Robert P Ricci <ricci@...> | <ricci@...>
> | Research Associate, University of Utah Flux Group
> | www.flux.utah.edu | www.emulab.net
> \-----------------------------------------------------------
>
_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg
« Return to Thread: clearinghouses (or not)
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
