Re: [Anima] About OSPF // ANIMA draft charter

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

The running of OSPF is autonomic. But the initial configuration process of OSPF is not autonomic, yet. This should be clearly distinguished in the example description. Maybe, we could modified the text to be more precise:

"Elements of autonomic functions already exist today, for example IGP routing protocols such as OSPF (although the initial configuration process of OSPF is not autonomic, yet.)"

Regards,

Sheng
________________________________________
From: Anima [[e-mail]] on behalf of Brian E Carpenter [[e-mail]]
Sent: 09 August 2014 4:01
To: Laurent Ciavaglia
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Anima] About OSPF // ANIMA draft charter

Laurent,

I think we already discussed the point that our aim is not to
aim for something like mathematical perfection where every autonomic
device meets every criterion for autonomic behaviour. Maybe this needs
to be explicit in the charter? In any case I would slightly rewrite
the first paragraph:

Autonomic Networking focuses on self-management of network elements.
An autonomic function works in a distributed way across various network
elements, but allowing central guidance and reporting, and co-existence
with non-autonomic methods of management. Elements of autonomic functions
already exist today, for example IGP routing protocols such as OSPF.
However, all such functions have their own discovery, transport, messaging
and security mechanisms as well as non-autonomic management interfaces.

    Brian

On 09/08/2014 02:05, Laurent Ciavaglia wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> During some exchanges on ANIMA, a colleague of mine pointed out the
> following:
> Quoting (with slight modifications):
>
>    "Autonomic functions already exist today, for example IGP routing
>    protocols such as OSPF."
>
>    -This statement is discussable: I would have said OSPF is adaptive
>    (from the current state only --not previous states- and by means of
>    OSPF PDU's only) but certainly not autonomous (in the sense: it
>    can't by itself tune its parameter space, in particular to operate
>    in its current form OSPF requires that all parameters are identical
>    in a given area).
>
>    -Might be worth rephrasing "Limited versions of autonomic
>    functions..." or
>    "Partially autonomic functions..."
>
> End of quote.
>
> The overall argument being if the starting point of ANIMA (or conclusion
> from NMRG) is the statement that the routing system (one of the most
> prominent function) is already autonomic, then it might cut short
> several areas of work.
>
> Thanks, Laurent.
>
>
>
>
> On 05/08/2014 10:19, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
>> At the BoF in Toronto there was rough consensus to continue the work
>> on an autonomic infrastructure. Brian, Sheng, Toerless, Laurent and I
>> have now drafted a potential WG charter with the input of our ADs.
>> Note that this is not yet a formal charter proposal, it's for
>> discussion only so far.
>>
>> The assumption is that more general aspects of autonomics will
>> continue to be discussed in the NMRG group.
>>
>> If we were to go ahead with a WG, the goal would be to focus on
>> realistic deliverables. So the plan is to start with a small,
>> achievable set of deliverables, and, if successful and useful, expand
>> after re-chartering.
>>
>> Please comment here on this draft charter proposal.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach (ANIMA) WG
>>
>> Description of Working Group
>>
>> Autonomic Networking focuses on self-management of network elements.
>> An autonomic function works in a distributed way across various
>> network elements, allowing however central guidance and reporting.
>> Autonomic functions already exist today, for example IGP routing
>> protocols such as OSPF. However, all such functions have their own
>> discovery, transport, messaging and security mechanisms.
>>
>> To transform the somewhat abstract Autonomic Networking concept into
>> concrete, realisable requirements, the first stage, undertaken in the
>> Network Management Research Group (NMRG) of the IRTF, was to define
>> terminology and design goals, and to derive a high-level gap analysis.
>> The definitions and design goals, as well as a simple architecture
>> model are defined in draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions;
>> the gap analysis for AN is described in
>> draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis. The UCAN BoF at IETF 90 discussed use
>> cases and some existing solutions. All the above work serves as a
>> baseline for this working group.
>>
>> This working group defines solutions for an initial set of components
>> of an autonomic networking infrastructure, based on the simple
>> architecture and design goals defined in
>> draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions. Future work may include
>> a more detailed systems architecture to support the development of
>> autonomic service agents. The Anima working group will initially focus
>> on enterprise, ISP networks and IoT.
>>
>> The solutions target to cover the following areas:
>> o identity of nodes
>> o common security model
>> o discovery model
>> o negotiation model
>> o a secure and logically separated communications channel
>> o an example for an autonomic management model
>>
>> The goals of this working group are:
>>
>> o Definition of a generic discovery and negotiation protocol for
>> autonomic functions
>>     Starting point: draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol
>> o Definition of a mechanism to bootstrap a trust infrastructure
>>     Starting point: draft-pritikin-bootstrapping-keyinfrastructures
>> o Definition of an logically separated Autonomic Control Plane
>>     Starting point: draft-behringer-autonomic-control-plane
>>
>> In addition, autonomic service agents will need to be defined for
>> specific use cases. The working group will initially consider one
>> simple example as a test case for further work.
>>
>> o Definition of <a selected use case by the group>
>>    Starting point: draft-use-case-tbd
>>
>> The initial set of work items is limited to the above list to stay
>> focused and avoid "boiling the ocean". Additional documents concerning
>> policy intent, other autonomic infrastructure components, use cases or
>> autonomic service agents are strongly encouraged, as individual
>> submissions, but are not planned as working group deliverables for
>> now. No additional work items will be accepted in the working group
>> without re-chartering.
>>
>> Milestones
>>
>> Nov 2014 - WG formation and adoption of drafts
>>             - Mar IETF -
>> Jun 2015 - WGLC for draft-generic-discovery-negotiation-protocol
>>             - Jul IETF -
>> Aug 2015 - submit draft-generic-discovery-negotiation-protocol to IESG
>> (standards track)
>> Oct 2015 - WGLC draft-keyinfrastructure-bootstrap
>> Oct 2015 - WGLC draft-use-case-tbd
>>             - Nov IETF -
>> Dec 2015 - submit draft-keyinfrastructure-bootstrap to IESG
>> (standards track)
>> Dec 2015 - submit draft-use-case-tbd to IESG  (standards track)
>> Jan 2016 - WGLC draft-autonomic-common-control-plane
>>             - Mar IETF -
>> Apr 2016 - submit draft-autonomic-common-control-plane to IESG
>> (standards track)
>> Jul 2016 - recharter if needed, or close
>>
>> --
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Anima mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima