Re: [Anima] Call for adoption: draft-dang-anima-network-service-auto-deployment

["zhouyujing (A)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Micheal

We admire the text you quoted is misleading. Of course, the purpose of this standard-track document is intend to give guidance for implementation so that the resource negotiation and distribution process can be done among distributed autonomic nodes. Actually, we believe the texts in the main body of this document serve the purpose well. We define the objective and the negotiation procedures.

What the misleading texts wanted to express is the document starts from architectural framework, the complete functions of this framework also include the internal decided logic/algorithm within a autonomic nodes, but the logic/algorithm are not part of standard definition.

We will certainly fix the misleading introduction text and add more detailed procedure description that give clearer instructions for implementors.

Many thanks and best regards
Yujing

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 13:02:19
To: [e-mail]; Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Anima] Call for adoption: draft-dang-anima-network-service-auto-deployment

I'd like to know a bit more about the plans for
draft-dang-anima-network-service-auto-deployment

The document says:

   The original purpose of this document was to validate the design of
   the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure (ANI) for a realistic use
   case.
...
   The goal of this document is to complete the resource-based self-
   adaptation among service and network nodes via GRASP.  And this
   document is not a complete functional specification of an autonomic
   system of Resource-based Network Services Auto-deployment, and it
   does not describe all detailed aspects of the GRASP objective
   parameters and Autonomic Service Agent (ASA) procedures necessary to
   build a complete system.  Instead, it describes the architectural
   framework utilizing the components of the ANI, outlines the different
   deployment options and aspects, and defines GRASP objectives for use
   in building the system.  It also provides some basic parameter
   examples.

What I'm reading is that this is a paper exercise and that no code or
deployment will occur.  I'm not sure why we'd publish this as an RFC.

It's the part after "instead" that really concerns me.
I'd like to see this implemented.



--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide