June 2010 - Nmc-wg - lists.ogf.org

Mappings: old result codes -> new result codes
by Roman Lapacz 04 Oct '10

04 Oct '10

Hi, I've started preparing the mappings. So far I've focused only on RRD MA, PSPS commons and PSPS LS. This is just the beginning for the discussion (to check if this is a good direction for all interested). Cheers, Roman

5 7

Meeting Notes - OGF29
by Jason Zurawski 23 Jun '10

23 Jun '10

All; I captured some meeting notes from OGF29, available here: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.nmc-wg/wiki/201006… Thanks; -jason

2 1

Next Scheduled Meeting - August 5th
by Jason Zurawski 22 Jun '10

22 Jun '10

All; Due to travel I will be unavailable to lead meetings until August 5th, I have started the agenda here: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.nmc-wg/wiki/201008… Since there will be 'open' weeks between now and then, feel free to self organize to talk about other related issues including the streaming proposal. If a meeting is held, please try to take notes and post them to the wiki. Between now and then I would like to see people work on the always present TODO list if possible: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.nmc-wg/wiki/NMCBas… Thanks; -jason

1 0

[ogf nmc-base svn commit] r33 - /
by svn＠ogf.org 22 Jun '10

22 Jun '10

Author: zurawski Date: 2010-06-22 09:48:16 -0500 (Tue, 22 Jun 2010) New Revision: 33 Modified: nmc-base.pdf nmc-base.tex Log: Moving the order of security to occur before the conclusion -jason Modified: nmc-base.pdf =================================================================== (Binary files differ) Modified: nmc-base.tex =================================================================== --- nmc-base.tex 2010-06-22 14:39:59 UTC (rev 32) +++ nmc-base.tex 2010-06-22 14:48:16 UTC (rev 33) @@ -114,12 +114,12 @@ \input{extension_new} +\input{security_considerations} + \input{conclusion} \input{acknowledgements} -\input{security_considerations} - \section{Notational Conventions} The key words ``MUST'' ``MUST NOT'', ``REQUIRED'', ``SHALL'', ``SHALL NOT'', ``SHOULD'', ``SHOULD NOT'', ``RECOMMENDED'', ``MAY'', and ``OPTIONAL'' are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 \cite{rfc2119}, except that the words do not appear in uppercase.

1 0

[ogf nmc-base svn commit] r32 - /
by svn＠ogf.org 22 Jun '10

22 Jun '10

Author: zurawski Date: 2010-06-22 09:39:59 -0500 (Tue, 22 Jun 2010) New Revision: 32 Modified: nmc-base.pdf Log: Draft for OGF 29 -jason Modified: nmc-base.pdf =================================================================== (Binary files differ)

1 0

Re: [Nmc-wg] Call 6/10 @ 15:00 UTC
by romradz＠man.poznan.pl 18 Jun '10

18 Jun '10

Thanks Michael. In general I think it would be perfect if NMC could support both approaches of data transfer (streaming and separate data channel). btw. could you write what's the difference between Flow MA (or Flow Subscription MA) and Flow Subscription MP. It's not clear to me (the picture https://wiki.man.poznan.pl/perfsonar-mdm/images/perfsonar-mdm/2/28/JRA1_Net… is confusing). ... and do you have examples of control NMC messages you were using for setting up tunnel(s). Roman On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Michael Bischoff wrote: > Well the old, and really old is still on the wiki: > https://wiki.man.poznan.pl/perfsonar-mdm/index.php/Flow_Subscription_MP/Imp… > > The (over?) simplified rundown is as follows: > > ---------------------------------------------------- > On perfsonar layer(control channel): > Subscribe message( subject(what do you want a stream of) + > target(setup tunnel to where) -> > <- key > ... > keepalive(with key) -> > <- ok > ... > Unsubscribe -> > <- clean tear down > ---------------------------------------------------- > On the transport layer(data channel): > (pre condition -> subscribe request) > perfsonar service creates a tunnel to target. > write data to service end of tunnel > > Now an extension upon the NMC-base that would standardize the > 'persfonar as control channel + data channel' would > need to ratify a couple of things like tunnel type negotiation(current > zebadee is simply assumed and used), some > definition over what protocols are allowed(they should probably be > 'open') and other things that I can't remember right > now. > > papers describing different implementations(non-perfsonar/nmc) should > be widely available. > The short, as most of the papers I've seen also seem to comment, is > that setting up a separate data channel is > costly and one needs to be able to justify this cost. Such an approach > is only useful in cases where you know > beforehand that there is going to be a lot of data. Other issue is the > cost of converting data because the data- > channel can 'speak' anything it wants it doesn't require conversion > which might be, a big enough safe that it offsets > the cost of setting up the separate channel. a Perfsonar specific > advantage is that it allows for smoother transition > to perfsonar as you can utilize perfsonar to discover services but > still receive in know format and process it using > (non-perfsonar) tools that are already available. (this avoids the all > or nothing barrier) > > Where there any specifics you wanted to know? > > Best regards, > > Michael > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM, romradz(a)man.poznan.pl > <romradz(a)man.poznan.pl> wrote: >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> is there the documentation of control channel approach which was implemented >> in flow subscription MA? >> >> Cheers, >> Roman >> >> >> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Michael Bischoff wrote: >> >>> I guess we postponed or something went really wrong.. >>> I've set up a doodle so people can indicate their availability for next >>> week: >>> http://doodle.com/m7vh8pd6exbaqf29 >>> >>> A proposal for streaming in NMC is here: >>> (mind you in still a work in progress/draft and it hasn't been proof >>> read/spell checked) >>> https://docs.google.com/a/controplex.com/View?id=dpn9385_1fmtsx7g9 >>> In it's current form should be good enough for gettign the discussion >>> started. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Michael >>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Michael Bischoff >>> <Michael.bischoff(a)controplex.nl> wrote: >>> That is a possibility I suppose, I don't know about the availability >>> of others. >>> Who is going to be available as it currently stands? >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:14 PM, romradz(a)man.poznan.pl >>> <romradz(a)man.poznan.pl> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> it will be very difficult to me to join the meeting today :( Can we >>> postpone it? >>> >>> Roman >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Jason Zurawski wrote: >>> >>> All; >>> >>> There will be an NMC call this thursday at 15:00 UTC. The meeting will >>> be run by Michael, and the agenda is to discus altering the protocol to >>> allow streaming (the response in particular). The notes and agenda will >>> be posted here: >>> >>> >>> https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.nmc-wg/wiki/201006… >>> >>> Thanks; >>> >>> -jason >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Nmc-wg mailing list >>> Nmc-wg(a)ogf.org >>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >

2 1

Call 6/10 @ 15:00 UTC
by Jason Zurawski 16 Jun '10

16 Jun '10

All; There will be an NMC call this thursday at 15:00 UTC. The meeting will be run by Michael, and the agenda is to discus altering the protocol to allow streaming (the response in particular). The notes and agenda will be posted here: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.nmc-wg/wiki/201006… Thanks; -jason

3 7

Reminder on Upcoming Meetings
by Jason Zurawski 16 Jun '10

16 Jun '10

All; OGF 29 is June 20-22nd. We will be holding 2 NMC sessions, but dial in will not be available. The regular conference calls on June 24th, July 8th, and July 22nd will be postponed unless there is a volunteer to set the agenda and lead. I will be unavailable on those dates. Thanks; -jason

1 0

NMC Streaming Call - Canceled
by Jason Zurawski 16 Jun '10

16 Jun '10

All; It seems that the MCU prevented most from joining today, and due to other commitments some of us needed to leave for other meetings. We will try to hold this call sometime in the future, or add it to the agenda for our regular meetings. We will also need to explore having a backup MCU available. I will check to see if the ESnet or Internet2 MCUs would be available at our regular meeting times. Thanks; -jason

2 2

[ogf nmc-base svn commit] r31 - /
by svn＠ogf.org 15 Jun '10

15 Jun '10

Author: zurawski Date: 2010-06-15 06:04:09 -0500 (Tue, 15 Jun 2010) New Revision: 31 Modified: acknowledgements.tex conclusion.tex nmc-base.pdf nmc-base.tex Log: Movin the security section before the notational conventions. Minor cleanups to ack/conc that were left out of a commit. -jason Modified: acknowledgements.tex =================================================================== --- acknowledgements.tex 2010-06-15 00:17:13 UTC (rev 30) +++ acknowledgements.tex 2010-06-15 11:04:09 UTC (rev 31) @@ -1,4 +1,8 @@ \section{Acknowledgements} \label{s:acknowledgements} -The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the perfSONAR consortium to this work. Specifically staff and member institutions from ESnet, Geant, Internet2, and RNP have provided extensive input and feedback into the implementation of this and all NMC-WG protocols. +The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the perfSONAR consortium +to this work. Specifically staff and member institutions from ESnet, G\'{E}ANT, +Internet2, and RNP have provided extensive input and feedback into the +implementation of this and all NMC-WG protocols. + Modified: conclusion.tex =================================================================== --- conclusion.tex 2010-06-15 00:17:13 UTC (rev 30) +++ conclusion.tex 2010-06-15 11:04:09 UTC (rev 31) @@ -5,4 +5,11 @@ % % Conclusion is weak, this needs to be two paragraphs and sum up the work. -The preceding work has described a simple protocol that will form the basis of communication for software exchanging both network measurements and topological information. This protocol is both minimal and flexible --- extension to specific use cases is possible and expected. This work has been careful to retain the concepts described in other working groups including \textbf{NM-WG} and \textbf{NML-WG} in an effort to remain compatible with the primary data types. +The preceding work has described a simple protocol that will form the basis of +communication for software exchanging both network measurements and topological +information. This protocol is both minimal and flexible --- extension to +specific use cases is possible and expected. This work has been careful to +retain the concepts described in other working groups including \textbf{NM-WG} +and \textbf{NML-WG} in an effort to remain compatible with the primary data +types. + Modified: nmc-base.pdf =================================================================== (Binary files differ) Modified: nmc-base.tex =================================================================== --- nmc-base.tex 2010-06-15 00:17:13 UTC (rev 30) +++ nmc-base.tex 2010-06-15 11:04:09 UTC (rev 31) @@ -118,12 +118,12 @@ \input{acknowledgements} +\input{security_considerations} + \section{Notational Conventions} The key words ``MUST'' ``MUST NOT'', ``REQUIRED'', ``SHALL'', ``SHALL NOT'', ``SHOULD'', ``SHOULD NOT'', ``RECOMMENDED'', ``MAY'', and ``OPTIONAL'' are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 \cite{rfc2119}, except that the words do not appear in uppercase. -\input{security_considerations} - \section{Contributors} \textbf{Jason Zurawski} \\

1 0