skip to main content
10.1145/3605098.3636074acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

AsyncSLA: Towards a Service Level Agreement for Asynchronous Services

Published:21 May 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

Complex distributed systems increasingly involve physical components as part of cyber-physical systems or Internet of things initiatives. Communication with such subsystems is typically asynchronous. Several initiatives like Web of Things or AsyncAPI have emerged to standardize and facilitate the definition of such asynchronous communications. However, these initiatives do not cover standards to specify the quality of service or define service level agreements (SLAs) for these asynchronous interactions. To address this issue, this paper proposes both a comprehensive quality model for asynchronous services based on the ISO/IEC 25010 standard, and a domain specific language to specify SLAs for asynchronous services based on the WS-Agreement standard. To facilitate its adoption, our proposed solution has been expressed also as an extension for the AsyncAPI specification. Finally, we provide a tool support to define these SLAs by extending an existing toolkit.

References

  1. A. Gehlert, A. Metzger (Eds.). 2009. CD-JRA-1.3.2 Quality Reference Model for SBA. https://www.s-cube-network.eu/results/deliverables/wp-jra-1.3/Reference_Model_for_SBA.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Eyhab Al-Masri and Qusay H. Mahmoud. 2009. Understanding web service discovery goals. In 2009 IEEE Int. Conf. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Awatif Alqahtani et al. 2019. Service level agreement specification for end-to-end IoT application ecosystems. Software: Practice and Experience 49, 12 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Alain Andrieux et al. 2007. Web services agreement specification (WS-Agreement). Technical Report. Grid Resource Allocation Agreement Protocol.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. AsyncAPI Initiative. [n. d.]. AsyncAPI specification 2.0.0. https://www.asyncapi.com/docs/specifications/2.0.0/ last accessed: Dec. 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Abdelhamied A Ateya et al. 2019. Latency and energy-efficient multi-hop routing protocol for unmanned aerial vehicle networks. Distributed Sensor Networks 15, 8 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Paolo Bocciarelli and Andrea D'Ambrogio. 2011. A model-driven method for describing and predicting the reliability of composite services. Softw. Syst. Model. 10, 2 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Mazen Ezzeddine, Sébastien Tauvel, Françoise Baude, and Fabrice Huer. 2021. On The Design of SLA-Aware and Cost-Efficient Event Driven Microservices. In Procs of WoC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Antonio Gamez-Diaz, Pablo Fernandez, and Antonio Ruiz-Cortes. 2019. Automating SLA-Driven API Development with SLA4OAI. In Procs. of ICSOC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Abel Gómez et al. 2022. Model-driven development of asynchronous message-driven architectures with AsyncAPI. Software and Systems Modeling 21, 4 (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Poonam Gupta et al. 2018. Event-driven SOA-based IoT Architecture. In Procs. of ICICA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. ISO/IEC. [n. d.]. 25010:2011 Systems and software engineering --- Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. ISO/IEC. 1998. ISO/IEC 13236:1998 Information technology --- Quality of service: Framework . https://www.iso.org/standard/27993.html last accessed: January 2023.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Katawut Kaewbanjong et al. 2015. Qos attributes of web services: A systematic review and classification. Journal of Advanced Management Science 3, 3 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Keven T Kearney, Francesco Torelli, and Constantinos Kotsokalis. 2010. SLA*: an abstract syntax for Service Level Agreements. In 2010 11th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Grid Computing. IEEE, 217--224.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Alexander Keller and Heiko Ludwig. 2003. The WSLA framework: Specifying and monitoring service level agreements for web services. Journal of Network and Systems Management 11 (2003), 57--81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Sachin Kumar, Prayag Tiwari, and Mikhail Zymbler. 2019. Internet of Things is a revolutionary approach for future technology enhancement: a review. J. of Big Data 6, 1 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. D Davide Lamanna, James Skene, and Wolfgang Emmerich. 2003. Slang: A language for defining service level agreements. In Ninth IEEE Workshop on Future Trends of Distributed Computing Systems, Proceedings. IEEE Computer Soc, 100--106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Gebrehiwet Gebrekrstos Lema. 2020. Performance evaluation of beamforming for network throughput enhancement. J. of Communication Systems 33, 16 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Fan Li, Christian Cabrera, and Siobhán Clarke. 2019. A WS-Agreement Based SLA Ontology for IoT Services. In Procs. of ICIOT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Yang Lu. 2017. Cyber Physical System (CPS)-Based Industry 4.0: A Survey. J. of Industrial Integration and Management 02, 03 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. E.M. Maximilien and M.P. Singh. 2004. A framework and ontology for dynamic Web services selection. IEEE Internet Computing 8, 5 (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Jawad Mustafa et al. 2019. Analyzing availability and QoS of service-oriented cloud for industrial IoT applications. In Procs. of ETFA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Carlos Müller et al. 2014. Comprehensive Explanation of SLA Violations at Runtime. Transactions on Services Computing 7, 2 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Marc Oriol, Jordi Marco, and Xavier Franch. 2014. Quality models for web services: A systematic mapping. Information and Software Technology 56, 10 (2014), 1167--1182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Dave Raggett. 2015. The Web of Things: Challenges and Opportunities. Computer 48, 5 (2015), 26--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Phillipa Sessini and Anirban Mahanti. 2006. Observations on round-trip times of TCP connections. Simulation Series 38, 3 (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Solace. 2021. The Great EDA Migration: New survey reveals event-driven architecture is a priority, despite 'early days' of adoption. https://solace.com/resources/white-papers/the-great-eda-migration-2021-survey-results#main-contentGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Solace. 2022. Getting in Sync: Unlocking the Exponential Business Value of RealTime Event-Driven Data Flows. https://solace.com/resources/white-papers/wp-download-idc-eda-surveyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Dave Steinberg, Frank Budinsky, Marcelo Paternostro, and Ed Merks. 2009. EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework (2 ed.). Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River, NJ. https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/emf-eclipse-modeling/9780321331885/Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SAC '24: Proceedings of the 39th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing
    April 2024
    1898 pages
    ISBN:9798400702433
    DOI:10.1145/3605098

    Copyright © 2024 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 21 May 2024

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader