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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

On 30/10/2014 19:55, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 31/10/2014 05:16, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> On 30/10/2014 15:49, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>> Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
>>> charter-ietf-anima-00-17: No Objection
>>>
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-anima/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I'm sad that two of my comments on the previously reviewed charter were
>>> ignored, especially when Brian said that he was going to make changes:
>>>
>>> 1st paragraph:
>>>
>>>      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.
>>>
>>> Do all autonomic functions work distributed? I'm not sure what this
>>> means.
>>>
>>> Brian's response: "If they aren't distributed, they just aren't
>>> candidates for protocol work. I think the logic of this sentence needs
>>> adjustment."
>> What is your proposal for this?
>> Please send it to everybody in the initial email.
> I suggest:
>
> An autonomic function that works in a distributed way across various
> network elements is a candidate for protocol design. Such functions
> should allow central guidance and reporting, and co-existence with
> non-autonomic methods of management.
Introduced in the latest charter version.

Regards, Benoit
>
> (Sorry, Pete, your two comments got lost in a rush of other
> pre-cutoff issues. I assume Benoit will put both of them in now.)
>
>     Brian
>
>> Regards, Benoit
>>> 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."
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
> .
>