Re: [Anima] Ted Lemon's Block on charter-ietf-anima-00-15: (with BLOCK)

Ted,

> The thing I still see missing in this charter is an explanation of how
> "professionally managed" and "autonomic" mesh.   What does it mean for an
> autonomic network to be professionally managed?   

I think the question is the other way round: what does it take for
a professionally managed network to be (partially) autonomic?
Which of course is intended to reduce the tedious part of the
management work, without removing managerial control. Answering
that question is the WG's purpose.

So, a professionally managed network is one that has professional
managers. I don't think we mean anything more subtle than that.

> What distinguishes an
> anima network from a homenet, for example?   The charter still reads as
> though it's solving the same problem as homenet; 

It is, but it's solving it for a different type of network: for example,
a network that's a thousand times bigger than a homenet, has many more
types of parameter to configure, has paying customers with contracts,
has staff on duty 24x7, and a 99.999% availability target.

That doesn't logically exclude common components in the solution,
of course. But there are IMHO strong reasons not to create any dependency
of homenet on results from anima.

   Brian

> I realize that this
> isn't what the proponents actually have in mind, but some greater clarity
> would be nice: it's still not clear in my mind from reading the charter
> or from my discussion with Joel and Benoit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> 