IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] Intent: -> NMRG -> ANIMA -> NMRG -> (ANIMA?)!) Re: proposed anima charter (was; Re: New work item proposal / agenda request)

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Fri, 22 February 2019 11:00 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BA012D4F3 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 03:00:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.206
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 eNmCe-ySTVD8 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 03:00:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D34EB1277CC for <anima@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 03:00:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA73548862; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:59:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 5C377440194; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:59:57 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:59:57 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, anima@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20190222105957.qeejtrzdbi5diay6@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20190219113132.ymvddinr4fii772z@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <26235.1550593198@localhost> <20190220135742.z472dytotkct3jjr@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <a1bd2e23-a76a-f520-46e2-248e050c22b1@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a1bd2e23-a76a-f520-46e2-248e050c22b1@gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/biJQW2-RNgEzANnyef_w8btMxbk>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Intent: -> NMRG -> ANIMA -> NMRG -> (ANIMA?)!) Re: proposed anima charter (was; Re: New work item proposal / agenda request)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 22 Feb 2019 11:00:04 -0000

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 08:37:43AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> To put it bluntly, we know how to distribute Intent in an ANIMA network
> (GRASP flooding if it's small, GRASP bulk transfer if it's big). We can
> even guess that it's likely to look exactly like JSON, which is trivial to
> represent in GRASP/CBOR. But we have no idea what it actually *is*.

Yes, thats the easy part and we have a draft waiting to be revived when
we can conclude that that part of work is needed. But right now we have
the larger issue of not knowing WHAT would be Intent, or how much of
Intent could really usefully be flooded as opposed to requiring
different distribution mechanism.

> That indeed seems to be a research problem.

I think terminology is more a political issue, but yes, NMRG is the more
appropriate place to solve this.

Cheers
    Toerless

> Regards
>    Brian
> 
> On 2019-02-21 02:57, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:19:58AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >> I find it slightly confusing that we say that Intent is part of the framework, but
> >> that we don't work on it without a recharter, but I guess the goal is not to
> >> forget it, but not to go down a rathole.
> > 
> > Wanted to reassert what i hope is the WG agreement about Intent, and we
> > had discussed this since at least IETF102:
> > 
> > Intent was given to us (ANIMA) from NMRG as part of the initial chater
> > scope. We did include it into the reference model, but we failed to find
> > enough actionable agreement on what Intent is and what to do about it.
> > 
> > We therefore for now would like to punt the next steps of work on Intent
> > back to NMRG and hope we can make enough progress there to later bring
> > it back into ANIMA.
> > 
> > I had given a more detailed presentation to this effect at the friday
> > NMRG workshop at IETF101 in Montreal, but somehow i can not find any
> > slides from that friday meeting. Maybe Laurent can comment were that
> > NMRG workshop notes are. There where more really good presentations.
> > 
> > I have appended the one i gave to this email.
> > 
> > Cheers
> >     Toerless
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Anima mailing list
> > Anima@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> > 

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email