IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 31 October 2014 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 843621A02F1; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 c9IeBCYqKKU3; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22c.google.com (mail-pd0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E40BD1A001C; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f172.google.com with SMTP id r10so7824816pdi.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Fhjc/1dfCoBDfFYijl1fMNmMBrp4t0LIHthX3FKCCzA=; b=ir5wu7453hserkymEF5SU2NQ2KnlEh7zGHkHYDadLObACSrqF8kDP/y3B8AKCmhL7H DakBYvV0E/HmHiGk9Qw3iDXD5IkncSk+DUf7/PeKtISirI7zirrvaJzRAFq5i6YKqVna TQXItf0zOIOhAaodt+VUiuDMfxrVRaVOWptCMUEwxYNeCPQMZj4pVYn91HSPD5SGOHYg Ma1X6UqfzNlPSv4cTyn0AjRFeMaHhM6py/dsWbkDEiMngLOv/vWTRjl2TUY5gV6pG1xV SrgVcKcy9xugtBnbu4y0z20H5Br/1+Kw5N1yvuxT4fvxOFoDFqD3cqPVc4RqQDwo68kb F5/Q==
X-Received: by 10.68.138.196 with SMTP id qs4mr27068138pbb.39.1414782949585; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (247.200.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.200.247]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id tu10sm10652391pab.14.2014.10.31.12.15.46 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5453DFEC.7000701@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:15:56 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <20141030144919.7222.58863.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54537DDF.4090103@cisco.com> <5453B5EF.2040107@qti.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <5453B5EF.2040107@qti.qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/W6tUzV3_cxLXUj0l5DYsk_3LHmY
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, 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 19:15:52 -0000

On 01/11/2014 05:16, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 10/31/14 5:17 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Then let's take a shot at rewriting it so that it's clear what the
> intention is:
> 
>    The goal of this working group shall be to develop one or more
>    protocol specifications (or extensions to existing protocols) to
>    address the following problem areas. These were selected to according
>    to the analyzed technical gaps in draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis:
> 
>    o Discovery for autonomic nodes
> 
>    o Negotiation for autonomic nodes
>       Starting point: draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol
> 
>    o Bootstrapping a trust infrastructure
>       Starting point: draft-pritikin-bootstrapping-keyinfrastructures
> 
>    o Separated Autonomic Control Plane
>       Starting point: draft-behringer-autonomic-control-plane

No objections.

We could do these updates too now:
s/draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol/draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol/
s/draft-behringer-autonomic-control-plane/draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane/

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email