[SAM] SAM RG next steps

[John Buford]

Hi Xiaoming,

I believe the charter stipulates that the RG works on:
1) problem statement, 2) requirements/driving scenarios, 3) framework, 4)
evaluation through
implementation, analysis or simulation.

IDs were written on 1,2, and 3.  They have been presented in several RG
meetings
with some discussion and no objections.  It is not clear how much more
should be
done on 1 and 2 IDs.  I don't know that we should try to push them to
informational
RFCs. Possibly new scenarios from IPTV or P2P video delivery systems could
be
incorporated into them.

Question: Should the RG try to push a problem statement / requriements / use
cases into
an informational RFC? If not, then these documents will probably stay in the
expired state.

As for (3), I plan to update (3) before the next meeting.
The goal of the SAM framework is to permit multiple ALM schemes to co-exist
in the
same multicast overlay for experimentation purposes.  The ALM schemes I
think are
most promising are those which are built on a P2P overlay.  In addition, in
the P2P-SIP
WG there is a proposal for a universal P2P overlay protocol. (universal in
that it is meant
to support the operations needed by several multi-hop structured overlays).

So, the direction I have in mind for the SAM Framework involves: extended
AMT gateways,
ALM on P2P overlay, use of a universal P2P overlay protocol.  Then, any
researcher
could plug their own ALM algorithm into this and select their own P2P
overlay algorithm
as well.  Meanwhile, the AMT integration means that native multicast and ALM
can co-exist.

That's the general idea.  We could either build this in PlanetLab or devise
a simulation environment so that multiple research groups can share it.

We should first agree on the SAM Framework approach.
Comments, counter proposals, etc. are welcomed.

John





On Jan 3, 2008 3:49 PM, Xiaoming Fu <fu at cs.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for your quick response.
> John Buford wrote:
> > Xiaoming,
> >
> > Thanks for raising these points.  Please see the separate email on
> > SAM RG 2007 report for a partial answer to the question,
> > where are we now?
>
> Maybe it could have been clearer, if action items were more visible to
> the RG on what we intend to next. Some additional comments to your
> comments.
>
> <deleted>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/sam/attachments/20080103/58594184/attachment.html