RFC 8316: Autonomic Networking Use Case for Distributed Detection of Service Level Agreement (SLA) Violations
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document describes an experimental use case that employs autonomic networking for the monitoring of Service Level Agreements (SLAs). The use case is for detecting violations of SLAs in a distributed fashion. It strives to optimize and dynamically adapt the autonomic deployment of active measurement probes in a way that maximizes the likelihood of detecting service-level violations with a given resource budget to perform active measurements. This optimization and adaptation should be done without any outside guidance or intervention. This document is a product of the IRTF Network Management Research Group (NMRG). It is published for informational purposes.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC8316
- Published
- February 2018
- Authors
- J. Nobre; L. Granville; A. Clemm; A. Gonzalez Prieto
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IRTF
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 16
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7933Adaptive Video Streaming over Information-Centric Networking (ICN)Current
August 2016
- RFC 9315Intent-Based Networking - Concepts and DefinitionsCurrent
October 2022
- RFC 5765Security Issues and Solutions in Peer-to-Peer Systems for Realtime CommunicationsCurrent
February 2010
- RFC 8366A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping ProtocolsCurrent
May 2018
- RFC 8368Using an Autonomic Control Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)Current
May 2018
- RFC 7904A SIP Usage for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)Current
October 2016
- RFC 7851Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Overlay DiagnosticsCurrent
May 2016
- RFC 8990GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)Current
May 2021
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?