Re: [Anima] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-07

["Michael H. Behringer" <[e-mail]>]

On 30/08/2018 04:06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2018-08-29 22:39, Michael H. Behringer wrote:
>> Christian, thanks for the review, my comments inline...
>>
>> On 26/08/2018 22:57, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> (Ccs trimmed)
>>>
>>> Christian,
>>>
>>> Thanks for this careful review. I'll comment here on the larger issues:
>>>
>>> On 2018-08-27 04:03, Christian Hopps wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Minor Major Issues:
>>>>
>>>> - Virtualization is mentioned once in "4.2 addressing" section. To quote:
>>>>
>>>>     TEXT: "Support for virtualization: Autonomic Nodes may support Autonomic
>>>>     Service Agents in different virtual machines or containers. The addressing
>>>>     scheme should support this architecture."
>>>>
>>>>     The special casing of VM/containers here seems to indicate that virtual
>>>>     devices are not "1st class citizens" in an autonomic network. In particular I
>>>>     could easily imagine virtual machines being full blown autonomic nodes
>>>>     themselves. Assuming the intent is not to restrict virtual devices in this
>>>>     manor something needs to be said (somewhere) to make that clear.
>>> I don't think that was the intention. We haven't really explored this in detail,
>>> but I can certainly imagine a deployment (for example) where each tenant in
>>> a data centre has its own virtual autonomic network, and the underlying physical
>>> network is also autonomic. Since the ACP is expected to be implemented as
>>> a VRF, you could even argue that every autonomic network is virtual.
>>>
>>> So, yes, we can reword this.
>> To add to Brian: I agree there was no intention to "downgrade"
>> virtualization. Nor am I aware of any text that indicates that, also not
>> what you quote above. We didn't mean this to say "this is not
>> recommended", only "we haven't explored / documented that further". I am
>> convinced that the Autonomic architecture will be all over data centers
>> one day, so OBVIOUSLY virtualization is important.
>>
>> Happy to re-word, but: What do you suggest we change / add? I'm really
>> not clear...
> A modest suggestion, on the basis that if Christian read the text differently
> from the authors' intentions, other people might do so as well.
>
> Support for virtualization: Autonomic functions can exist either at the
> level of the physical network and physical devices, or at the level
> of virtual machines, containers and networks. In particular, Autonomic
> Nodes may support Autonomic Service Agents in virtual entities. The
> infrastructure, including the addressing scheme, should be able to
> support this architecture.
>
> (Comment: it isn't just addressing. There are software design
> implications too, but that is out of scope here, I think.)

OK, sounds good. I'll change that.

I wait for potential further last call comments before making the 
changes and publishing a new version.

Michael

[rest deleted]