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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

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