Re: [Anima] Use of the chartering tool for ANIMA - draft names mentioned or not?

[Laurent Ciavaglia <[e-mail]>]

Dear Benoit, all,

I am in favor of track nr. 2., and yes, I believe the WG should address 
such problem(s) (assuming I undestood correctly problem in this context 
as the set of functionalities in scope of the WG).

I would describe these parts (functionalities) in the charter by:
     -naming the functionality, short description, references (articles, 
I-Ds).

HTH, best regards, Laurent.


On 13/09/2014 09:24, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Let me split the issue.
> I inserted the draft names back in the charter at 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-anima/
> As explained in a previous email (Subject "ANIMA status"):
>
>     Regarding the starting points mentioning the draft names, I
>     actually believe that pointing to existing work is a plus, to see
>     some description behind a single bullet point. Let's imagine that
>     you read "Definition of a solution for a separated Autonomic
>     Control Plane" for the first time (this is what will happen
>     when/if this charter is proposed for last-call), I'm sure that
>     would lead to many questions or potential wrong assumptions.
>     Note, however, that mentioning starting points doesn't imply that
>     we ask you to adopt those document as WG items now.
>
> I see two tracks from here:
> 1. We keep the draft names as starting points.
>
> 2. We remove the draft names BUT you have to be slightly more verbose 
> on what you try to achieve WITHOUT going in the full discussion right 
> now. For example, all Dmitri's questions are valid ...
>
>     Discovery as documented "draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol" (listed in the charter) states it is designed to be a generic negotiation platform (if someone can explain what the word platform means in this context this would be really helpful), it assumes "the main target scenarios are still hierarchical networks [...] we assume that each network element has a hierarchical superior" (how does such constraint relate to the NRMG framework document which states "Those nodes communicate with each other through an Autonomic Control Plane which provides a robust and secure communications overlay" which reads plane needs drive the inter-agent communication paths and not the other way around), and more importantly it doesn't put at all in perspective the three components of a discovery process in such systems: where is agent X (location), what can do/provide agent Y (function/resource), which knowledge has agent Z (information) and whether other agents should
>        access
>       either of them directly or indirectly. This type of considerations should be part of a document that could be considered as a starting point.
>
> ... but I wonder whether we should answer all them now, at charter time.
>
> The real question is: should a future WG be working on this problem?
>
> Regards, Benoit
>> Brian:
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 10:25 PM
>>> To: Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Dimitri)
>>> Cc: Benoit Claise;[e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [Anima] Use of the chartering tool for ANIMA
>>>
>>> Two clarifications:
>>>
>>> On 13/09/2014 07:56, Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Dimitri) wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Discovery as documented "draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol"
>>>> (listed in the charter)
>>> No, we have removed it from the charter according to earlier discussions.
>>> (I'd be glad to respond to your specific comments on the draft, but that
>>> is not a chartering issue.)
>> In the latest version (as posted by Benoit<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/anima/current/msg00266.html>, I read:
>>
>> [specific goals]
>> The goals of this working group are below. The were selected to according to the
>> analyzed technical gaps in draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis:
>> o Definition of a discovery and negotiation protocol for autonomic functions
>>     Starting point: draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol
>> o Definition of a solution to bootstrap a trust infrastructure
>>     Starting point: draft-pritikin-bootstrapping-keyinfrastructures
>> o Definition of a solution for a separated Autonomic Control Plane
>>     Starting point: draft-behringer-autonomic-control-plane
>>
>>>> Side question: as the IETF now asks for IPR related issues once adopting
>>> a document (from its charter), what would happen in case of any IPR
>>> application to the documents listed in the charter ? will you allow this
>>> group proposing its royalty free protocol ?
>>>
>>> IPR disclosure is required as soon as a contribution is posted - there is
>>> nothing special about WG adoption in that respect.
>> I don't understand then why my mailbox is full of emails from WG chairs asking for any IPR issue upon WG adoption.
>>
>>> Also, each WG makes its own decisions about whether any disclosed IPR is a
>>> problem or not; that's a consensus matter, not an AD choice.
>>>
>>>     Brian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

-- 

Bien cordialement, Best regards,

*Laurent Ciavaglia*

Advanced Internet Research

Bell Labs | Alcatel Lucent

phone: [phone]

email: [e-mail] 
<mailto:[e-mail]>

linkedin: laurentciavaglia <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/laurentciavaglia/>

address: Route de Villejust | 91620 Nozay | France