This page contains discussion on the supervision and monitoring of services. In particular it discusses what is possible to have a harmonised way to notify users when a service is down or degraded.

Background

Supervision was addressed in a SESAR project on virtual centres. This presentation summarises the approach used in the project. Details are also available in the the PJ 16 final report (https://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/projects/FPR/PJ_16 Final Project Report official V2.doc.pdf).

The topic was further discussed at the October Round Table meeting. The participants discussed what the objectives of the task would be. It was agreed that there is no need to create a service definition for a monitoring and supervision service. In reality, this would be difficult to create. The focus should therefore be on certain best practices.

Topics for best practices

• cybersecurity - how does this apply to a supervision service?

  • General feeling is that there is no need to have a best practice on this.

• will the service have a ticketing mechanism to inform support?

  • General feeling is that there is no need to have a best practice on this.

• semantics of availability statuses. Each implementation may have a different set of statuses - is it possible to align them? We should target the minimum number of statuses that can be agreed. Also acknowledge that alignment may not be possible.

  • the focus is on service availability. Service appliance availability and Service appliance resource utilisation were seen as too detailed.

Service availability statuses

This section covers the semantics of the service availability statuses.

Resources

• https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/resourcehealth/availability-statuses/list?view=rest-resourcehealth-2024-02-01&tabs=HTTP

• What is service availability?