For those who may be interested.

-Haibin

From: alto-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:alto-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Leeyoung
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:57 AM
To: alto@ietf.org
Subject: [alto] Call for Papers for the "International Workshop= on Cross-Stratum Optimization for Cloud Computing and Distributed Networke= d Applications"

[Apologies if you receive multi= ple copies of this message]

First Call for Papers for the &= #8220;International Workshop on Cross-Stratum Optimization for Cloud Comput= ing and Distributed Networked Applications”

http://cccso.net/

Co-located with the 10th IEEE I= nternational Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing with Applicat= ions, ISPA 2012

http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/is= pa12/index.shtml

July 10-13, 2012

Leganes, Madrid, Spain

Aims and Scope

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D

The current lack of interaction= between networked applications and the underlying network during service p= rovisioning cause inefficiencies on the use of network resources which can = negatively impact the quality expectations of the final consumers of those applications.

Typical networked applications = are offered through Information Technology (IT) resources (as computing and= storage facilities) residing in data centers. Data centers then provide th= e physical and virtual infrastructure in which applications and services are provided. Since the data centers ar= e usually distributed geographically around a network, many decisions made = in the control and management of application services, such as where to ins= tantiate another service instance, or which data center out of several is assigned to a new customer, can hav= e a significant impact on the state of the network. In the same way, the ca= pabilities and state of the network can have a major impact on application = performance.

Cross-stratum optimization (CSO= ) is referred to the combined optimization of both the application and the = network components that aims to provide joint resource optimization, respon= siveness to quickly changing demands from/to application to/from network, enhanced service resilience using coo= perative recovery techniques, and quality of experience assurance by a bett= er use of existing network and application resources, among others.

The CSO involves the overall op= timization of application layer and network resources by envisioning next g= eneration architecture for interactions and exchanges between the two layer= s to improve service continuity, performance guarantees, scalability and manageability. The goal of this workshop is to= promote the research interest on the optimal integration of application an= d network resources.

This workshop aims to explore t= he challenges and issues faced by cloud computing and data center integrati= on with networks. Among the key areas of investigation to be discussed in t= he workshop are as follows: =

.- Application/network integrat= ion architectures and subsystems

.- Use cases, business models a= nd requirements for application/network integration

.- Control/management issues fo= r application/network integration

.- Network virtualization and i= ts impact for application/network integration

.- Network-aware application/cl= oud computing

.- Flexible and scalable networ= king solutions for distributed Data Centers

.- Joint application/network re= liability and security

.- Experimental/trial experienc= e

.- Scalability

.- Joint/shared performance and= fault monitoring

.- Multi-domain issues

Important Dates

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Paper Submission Deadline: 03 F= ebruary 2012

Paper Acceptance Notification: = 30 March 2012

Camera-ready Paper Submissions:= 13 April 2012

Tentative workshop day: 10 July= 2012 (to be confirmed)

Venue<= o:p>

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, = Leganes, Spain

Submision guidelines=

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Target papers should describe o= riginal and unpublished work. The submission process will be done online by= using EasyChair submission system:

http://www.easychair.org/confer= ences/?conf=3Dispa2012

choosing this workshop among th= e various workshops held in conjunction with ISPA-2012

Details on the paper format and= length will be provided soon.

Technical Program Committee

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Richard Alimi (Google, USA)

Greg Bernstein (Grotto Networki= ng, USA)

TaeSang Choi (ETRI, Korea)<= span lang=3D"EN-US">

Nicola Ciulli (Nextworks, Italy)

Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (Telef=F3ni= ca I+D, Spain)

Volker Hilt (Bell Labs, USA)

Giada Landi (Nextworks, Italy)<= o:p>

Dan Li (Huawei, China)

Thomas D. Nadeau (CA Technologi= es, USA)

Kohei Shiomoto (NTT, Japan)

Ning So (Verizon, USA)

Hui Yang (Beijing University Po= st and Telecommunication (BUPT), China)

Yang Richard Yang (Yale Univers= ity, USA)

Workshop Organizing Committee

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

Young Lee, Huawei Technologies = (leeyoung (at) huawei.com)

Luis M. Contreras, Telef=F3nica I&= #43;D (lmcm (at) tid.es)

Andrea Fumagalli, The Universit= y of Texas at Dallas (andreaf (at) utdallas.edu)

______________

Young Lee<= /span>

Huawei Tec= hnologies

FYI

From:= = Rahman, Akbar
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 1:07 = PM
To: David Harrington; iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Cc: = Songhaibin; Woundy, Richard
Subject: Document Shepherd = Write-Up for DECADE WG ID: = draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05

The DECADE WG I-D mentioned below = is ready for IESG review and approval.
Please find below the = document shepherd write-up.

I-D: = DECADE = Requirements
&nb= sp; <draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05>

/Akbar

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this =
document? Has the

        =
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the =

        doc=
ument and, in particular, does he or she believe this =

        ver=
sion is ready for forwarding to the IESG for =
publication?

Document shepherd: Akbar Rahman (as per =
request from DECADE chairs).
Yes, I have personally reviewed this =
version of the document and I believe it is
ready for IESG review and =
publication.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate =
review both from key WG members

        and=
 from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have =

        any=
 concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that =

        hav=
e been performed?

The document has had extensive reviews =
from both key and other WG members.
I am satisfied with the depth and =
breadth of the reviews.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have =
concerns that the document

        nee=
ds more review from a particular or broader perspective, =

        e.g=
., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with =

        AAA=
, internationalization or XML?

I do not have concerns.  The =
document is covering DECADE requirements =
and

the WG has had quite =
extensive reviews of the document.

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any =
specific concerns or

        iss=
ues with this document that the Responsible Area =
Director

        and/or =
the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he =

        or =
she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or =

        has=
 concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any =

        eve=
nt, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated =

        tha=
t it still wishes to advance the document, detail those =

        con=
cerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document =

        bee=
n filed? If so, please include a reference to the =

        dis=
closure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on =

        thi=
s issue.

I do not have any specific concerns at =
this time regarding this document.
The document has been presented =
and discussed adequately in previous =
WG

meetings and on the mailing list. =


I am NOT aware of any IPR disclosures related to this =
document.

  (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus =
behind this document? Does it

        rep=
resent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with =

        oth=
ers being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and =

        agr=
ee with it?

There is good concurrence among active =
participants on the subject.

I believe the majority of the WG =
understands the document and do not object.

  (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or =
otherwise indicated extreme

        dis=
content? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in =

        sep=
arate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It =

        sho=
uld be in a separate email because this questionnaire is =

        ent=
ered into the ID Tracker.)

No threats of appeal or extreme =
discontent have been expressed
regarding this =
I-D.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd =
personally verified that the

        doc=
ument satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts =
Checklist

        and=
 http://tools.ietf.org/tools/=
idnits/). Boilerplate checks are

        not=
 enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document =

        met=
 all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB =

        Doc=
tor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes. I have run the I-D through the ID =
nits tool and found no major issues.

The only minor warning that I =
received was regarding version numbers

of some informative =
references (see below).  I believe these can be =

fixed when any IESG comments =
are addressed.

<= /p>

=3D=3D Outdated = reference: A later version (-04) exists of

= draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-03

<= /p>

=3D=3D Outdated = reference: A later version (-04) exists of

= draft-ietf-decade-arch-02

  (1.h) Has the document split its references =
into normative and

        inf=
ormative? Are there normative references to documents that =

        are=
 not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear =

        sta=
te? If such normative references exist, what is the =

        str=
ategy for their completion? Are there normative references =

        tha=
t are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If =

        so,=
 list these downward references to support the Area =

        Dir=
ector in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. =

References are split into normative and =
informative sections.
The normative references are published =
RFCs.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified =
that the document IANA

        con=
sideration section exists and is consistent with the body =

        of =
the document? If the document specifies protocol =

        ext=
ensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA =

        reg=
istries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If =

        the=
 document creates a new registry, does it define the =

        pro=
posed initial contents of the registry and an allocation =

        pro=
cedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a =

        rea=
sonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the =

        doc=
ument describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd =

        con=
ferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG =

        can=
 appoint the needed Expert during the IESG =
Evaluation?

Yes, I have verified the IANA =
Considerations Section.  There are =
no

IANA =
impacts as this is a Requirements =
document

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd =
verified that sections of the

        doc=
ument that are written in a formal language, such as XML =

        cod=
e, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in =

        an =
automated checker?

Not =
applicable.

  (1.k) The IESG approval announcement =
includes a Document

        Ann=
ouncement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document =

        Ann=
ouncement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in =
the

        =
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval =

        ann=
ouncement contains the following =
sections:

     Technical Summary =

The target of DECoupled = Application Data Enroute (DECADE) is to

provide an open and = standard in-network storage system for

applications, primarily = P2P (peer-to-peer) applications, to store,

retrieve and manage = their data. This draft enumerates and = explains

requirements, not only = for storage and retrieval, but also for data

management, access = control and resource control, that should be

considered during the = design and implementation of a DECADE system.

These are requirements = on the entire system; some of the requirements

may eventually be = implemented by an existing protocol with/without

some extensions (e.g., a = protocol used to read and write data from

the storage = system). The requirements in this document are = intended

to ensure that the = DECADE architecture includes all of the desired

functionality for = intended applications.

     Working Group Summary =

        Was=
 there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For =

        exa=
mple, was there controversy about particular points or =

        wer=
e there decisions where the consensus was particularly =

        rou=
gh?

There is support in the WG to advance =
this work. There has not been any

major controversy.

     Document Quality =

        Are=
 there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a =

        sig=
nificant number of vendors indicated their plan to =

        imp=
lement the specification?

This is a requirements document for the =
DECADE protocol.  There is no

DECADE protocol I-D specified yet.  =
So there is no existing =
implementations

of DECADE.  However, there have been =
some early experimental work by

the research community in the space of =
DECADE type in-network storage

as, for example, captured by: =

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-decade-integration-exam=
ple/