Re: summary of discussions and near term goals

> 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
> <Substrate WG - 06Nov07.xls>
> <mime-attachment.txt>