Re: [Anima] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-du-anima-an-intent-04.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Is the attached drawing correct? It's supposed to be an Autonomic Function
implemented across three Autonomic Nodes X, Y and Z containing a total of
four ASAs managing two different technical objectives A and B.

(If anyone wants to fire back a corrected version I have attached the PPT
as well as the PDF.)

Regards
   Brian

On 12/07/2016 02:45, Laurent Ciavaglia wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> There is some text in draft-peloso-anima-autonomic-function-01
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peloso-anima-autonomic-function-01) detailing what should be considered when installing,
> instantiating and operating AF/ASA.
> Please see sections 3+.
> 
> Feedback on the text is most welcome as this will be presented at IETF96/Berlin.
> 
> Best regards, Laurent.
> 
> 
> On 11/07/2016 14:55, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> I believe your description, and that of others as to what we "intend", does not line up with the definition you quote.
>>
>> The text says that an ASA "implements an autonomic function." That seems to say that I sould expect an autonomic function to
>> be implemented by an ASA, thus implying a 1-1 relationship.
>>
>> yet, your example states an AF of "bootstrapping", but the funcitonality of the ASA being a much smaller piece.
>>
>> Net: No, the words do not clearly state what we intend.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 7/11/16 8:39 AM, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>> Also, how is the relevance for each ASA known?
>>>>>
>>>>> My proposal: Intent comes in sections; those sections are
>>>>> labelled with the
>>>> name of the ASA / autonomic function they belong to. Also here,
>>>> there are many ways to do this, it's a simple proposal which could
>>>> be optimised in many ways.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And is that the correct granularity of the section? Maybe the
>>>>>> granularity should be individual objectives, or certain groups
>>>>>> of objectives? I think this needs more discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> On this one I agree!! We should have more discussions on that.
>>>>> Your point
>>>> from the other mail, that we should try implementing some ASAs
>>>> would help understand this better.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. There's been an assumption, I think, that one "autonomic
>>>> function" == one ASA. We need to be clear if that is an axiom, and
>>>> we need to think about how ASAs are named, and if those names need
>>>> to be registered somehow.
>>>
>>> Yes, that misunderstanding keeps popping up all the time.  I think
>>> RFC7575 is quite clear:
>>>
>>> Autonomic Function: A feature or function that requires no
>>> configuration and can derive all required information through self-
>>> knowledge, discovery, or Intent.
>>>
>>> Autonomic Service Agent: An agent implemented on an autonomic node
>>> that implements an autonomic function, either in part (in the case
>>> of a distributed function) or whole.
>>>
>>> Example: There is the "autonomic function" "bootstrapping of new
>>> nodes". It consists of 3 different ASAs: The new_device ASA, the
>>> proxy ASA and the registrar ASA.
>>>
>>> How can we make that clearer? (I thought RFC7575 *is* clear).
>> ...
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Anima mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>>
>