Re: [Anima] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-du-anima-an-intent-04.txt

[Laurent Ciavaglia <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

> Yes. There's been an assumption, I think, that one "autonomic function" == one ASA.
> We need to be clear if that is an axiom, and we need to think about how ASAs are
> named, and if those names need to be registered somehow.

Mmmh... where does this assumption come from...?
I think we've been quite clear the general case is one AF == multiple 
ASAs. An AF instantiated by (only) one ASA is a sub-case. Cf. figure 1 
of the Reference model draft.

Why would ASAs need a name? That ASA need an ID is ok, but machines 
don't care about having stuff referenced with names... and I don't think 
human operators will have to deal with ASAs (one of the goals of 
ANetworking), or at least not often enough to justify the use of a 
naming scheme.
AFs could have names (and would actually need more than just name, e.g. 
version number, description of what it does, requires, etc.).

Or am I completely overlooking something?

Best regards, Laurent.