Re: summary of discussions and near term goals + wireless

> All,
>
> Thank you for the recent discussions on this mailing list, it has been
> very helpful and we (GPO) are pleased by the level of activity.  Below
> is a list of comments and questions I believe summarizes the
> discussion to date.
>
> 1. We need consensus on definitions for all column headings in the
> excel spreadsheet. The two which seem to generate the most discussion
> are component and sliceable.
>
> 1a. One area of confusion with component column was the notion of a
> component being constructed from a set of other components,
> specifically the network component.  As shown in the latest
> spreadsheet,  the wireless sensor domain may view subnets as a
> substrate component. There was also input to this list suggesting that
> a network could be spatially separated for isolated experiments, which
> may also support treating the network, and other scenarios where a
> group of components, is itself treated as a component. I would like
> the near term focus be to build consensus on what we mean by component
> and that we have a complete list in Column A. Although other columns
> in the spreadsheet may raise questions, I would like to suggest an
> approach to get the list of components agreed upon. As it currently
> stands, component and substrate is somewhat blurred. A distinction may
> be that anything which has a resource available for a GENI researcher
> to build a slice from should be considered a component.
>
> 1b. There was some discussion on links, are these resources of a
> "network" component or should we create a separate link component?
>
> 1c. I believe "sliceable" is a bad term for a couple of reasons, one
> is that the term slice is used in GENI to refer to a specific
> researchers collection of GENI resources, and each piece of a resource
> is called a sliver. Instead of "sliceable", I will start using
> dividable (assuming no objection or other suggestions). I also believe
> that dividable could be redundant with resource, since a resource is
> ideally something that can be shared across many experiments. If
> in-fact, a resource is not dividable, it may be an exception and not
> the rule. So, in future versions of this spreadsheet, the dividable
> column may be deleted.
>
> 2. The concept of measurement and how it affects our work in the
> substrate-wg, is not presently addressed in the spreadsheet, however
> it probably should be included. Currently, I can identify three areas
> where measurement distinctions may be drawn; GIMS as a measurement
> service, for use in GENI operations and management, and the dependence
> of external test equipment on substrate components/architecture. There
> was earlier discussion on measurements for cross-layer networking, but
> I believe this could be addressed in the following discussion on
> control plane.
>
> 3. The GENI narrow waist control and operations management entities
> are outside the scope of research, and are essential in ensuring a
> safe and robust GENI environment. Furthermore, control and management
> research will not be allowed to compromise this essential operation.
> However, there is significant interest in using GENI for research on
> control and management of next generation networks. The research
> elements of control and management probably should fall into the
> substrate-wg activities. From the perspective of identifying
> components and resources, how should we position these network functions?
>
> 4. A comment was made that the current substrate-component-resource
> hierarchy implied by the worksheet may not be adequate. We are not
> constrained by a column count, so we should do whatever makes the most
> sense. Hopefully the answer to this will evolve as we populate the
> worksheet. To reiterate my previous suggestion, I would like to see
> the wg focus on column A (components) first, and we can build from
> that base.
>
> I believe this captures the discussions thus far, if I have omitted or
> missed on the interpretation, please speak up. Attached is the latest
> version of the spreadsheet. What is missing, confusing, wrong? Do we
> have wireless covered? What about a wireless subnet distinction from
> wireless sensor subnets?
>
> Thanks,
> John
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This body part will be downloaded on demand.