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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Laurent, the text in section 3 of your document is informative.

I am left confused about what are the actual definitions of and 
relationships between an AF (Autonomic Function) and an ASA (Autonomic 
Service Agent)?  The definition Michael pointed at and the conversation 
on the list seem quite different.

Yours,
Joel

On 7/11/16 10:45 AM, 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
>>
>
> --
>
> Laurent Ciavaglia
>
> Nokia, Bell Labs
>
>
>
> [phone]
>
> route de Villejust - Nozay, France
>
> linkedin.com/in/laurent.ciavaglia
>