Re: [Anima] "virtual out-of-band" ... or some minor non-ACP-number comments on Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-25.txt

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Tue, 30 June 2020 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8356C3A0B95 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 09:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TUkevKwEwhvf for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 09:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E7553A0B72 for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 09:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC2654843F; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 18:12:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 5934E440043; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 18:12:32 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 18:12:32 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: "Michael H. Behringer" <Michael.H.Behringer@gmail.com>, Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200630161232.GB48194@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <159296586835.337.577109779817720457@ietfa.amsl.com> <16876f80-5504-a622-f13c-686ce69b4733@sandelman.ca> <86736d02-d1b6-ebfb-a894-92c9ca4b1e96@concordia.ca> <1d463beb-ba42-9495-0c53-58116b6f3a57@gmail.com> <3528e4d5-4eb8-0e9f-6fe1-49494e9fcd54@gmail.com> <CANMZLAZZwdxGYSzphrsjv-jsRbkSxL5xS3OHsj7uCdkq8kD5DA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANMZLAZZwdxGYSzphrsjv-jsRbkSxL5xS3OHsj7uCdkq8kD5DA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/FBVjPR9RjE5czBOaiVJG8nRGZiI>
Subject: Re: [Anima] "virtual out-of-band" ... or some minor non-ACP-number comments on Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-25.txt
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:12:41 -0000

Thanks to everbody chiming in for "virtual out of band" ;-)
I would have hated anything with "overlay", i think Arthur correctly described it with "blind"

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 09:27:30PM +1200, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> To be clear, I don't feel at all strongly about this. If people accept
> 'virtual out of band', I certainly don't object.
> 
> Regards
>     Brian
>     (via tiny screen & keyboard)
> 
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020, 18:27 Michael H. Behringer, <
> michael.h.behringer@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I still prefer the definition "virtual out of band".
> >
> > An "overlay" (secure or not) depends on correct configuration of the
> > underlay. The ACP does NOT depend on configuration in the underlay, that
> > is what makes it special.
> >
> > I haven't seen the definition "virtual out of band" anywhere else, and
> > it is the most precise way to describe it.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > On 30/06/2020 00:06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > Say "secure overlay" to emphasise the point, but yes.
> > >
> > > The draft I submitted yesterday "describes a simple method of forming an
> > ACP immediately above the transport layer" which is indeed precisely a
> > secure overlay.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >     Brian
> > >
> > > On 30-Jun-20 00:45, William Atwood wrote:
> > >> Is "overlay" the right word?
> > >>
> > >> I agree that it is physically in-band, and virtually out-of-band.  Isn't
> > >> that the definition of "overlay"?
> > >>
> > >>    Bill
> > >>
> > >> On 2020-06-28 11:02 p.m., Michael Richardson wrote:
> > >>> Attention This email originates from outside the concordia.ca domain.
> > //
> > >>> Ce courriel provient de l'exterieur du domaine de concordia.ca
> > >>> On 2020-06-23 10:31 p.m., internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> > >>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-25
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> yes, I read the diffs :-)
> > >>>
> > >>> -   This document describes a modular design for a self-forming, self-
> > >>> -   managing and self-protecting ACP, which is a virtual in-band
> > network
> > >>> -   designed to be as independent as possible of configuration,
> > >>>
> > >>> +   This document describes a modular design for a self-forming, self-
> > >>> +   managing and self-protecting ACP, which is a virtual out-of-band
> > >>> +   network designed to be as independent as possible of configuration,
> > >>>
> > >>> This change from being a virtual in-band network to a virtual
> > >>> out-of-band network must have been in response to some comments... It
> > >>> seems a big change in some ways.  I guess it makes this text consistent
> > >>> with the abstract which has said virtual out-of-band for awhile now.
> > >>>
> > >>> But, I do have to wonder if we are creating confusion by claiming that
> > >>> this is an out-of-band mechanism, even though it's really an in-band
> > >>> mechanism.  It's just virtually-out.
> > >>>
> > >>> I actually do want to start a bike-shed issue here?
> > >>> Are we describing ourself wrong?  Maybe there is some portmanteau that
> > >>> would be more accurate?  I think that the above sentence is essentially
> > >>> the elevator pitch for all of ANIMA.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> There is also a bunch of other text that has been added to the
> > >>> Introduction, which I think confuses more than it enlightens.
> > >>> Or at least needs a better copy-edit.
> > >>>
> > >>> A number of other new sections (9.4..) need a copy-edit to fix some
> > >>> missing words.  I will try to help Toerless with that via github.
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Anima mailing list
> > >>> Anima@ietf.org
> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> > >>>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Anima mailing list
> > > Anima@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Anima mailing list
> > Anima@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima


-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de