IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] Pete Resnick's No Objection on charter-ietf-anima-00-17: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 31 October 2014 12:17 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB65A1A8A82; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 05:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 DGcumWYUQstk; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 05:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B4F71A887C; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 05:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2705; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414757858; x=1415967458; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=5i67aTYlMNrSTGfDR0B+VdFUT+1ajBVaA2LV0td08hU=; b=H1G6v1ZMfTDVV9meQfSdQZSAGdAWEiMU10frXO1r5GgJ3LM3MPvS8/1/ NAIUmntdRdWKcbyfR8AA/tB+eNuv7rGZgHagvQKix0jXyHloAJLkZjtx7 bUqapXKJ/PDC6syl9BP1nbecXTrBfWFTK763Jg51zLhqvgiK4E0E6GdVN k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ar8EAKZ8U1StJssW/2dsb2JhbABcg2JYgwbKGodNAoEtAQEBAQF9hAMBAQQjVQEQCwQBCRMWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYBDAEHAQEFiDgNtHWUdgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReQPwEBTweCd4FUBZ14h3COWIN5PC8BgQ6BPAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,294,1413244800"; d="scan'208,217";a="231751734"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2014 12:17:36 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9VCHZlV029204; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:17:36 GMT
Message-ID: <54537DDF.4090103@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:17:35 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20141030144919.7222.58863.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141030144919.7222.58863.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040202010805010008000501"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/Fe6wJrYoE81IKIPLpaflzJKQPkc
Cc: anima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] Pete Resnick's No Objection on charter-ietf-anima-00-17: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:17:40 -0000

Pete,
>
> 9th paragraph:
>
>     Definition of a discovery functionality for autonomic functions
>
> I don't understand what that means. By "functionality" do you mean
> protocol?
>
> Brian's response: "Definition of a discovery protocol for autonomic
> nodes."
After some more investigation, this was discussed in 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/anima/current/msg00454.html,

    1) the choice of the term "functionality" instead of "protocol" was
    used on purpose as to avoid choosing _a priori_ the (de)composition
    in protocol(s). i.e. one _a posteriori_ / informed decision will be
    how to "group" the different functionality in one or more protocols
    (or extension of existing ones).

I thought that Laurent had a valid argument.

Regards, Benoit

>
>
> .
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email