Re: [Anima] Latest draft charter text of ANIMA

Hi,

(FYI a direct link to the draft charter is:
 https://trac.ietf.org/trac/anima/wiki/Recharter2019 )

One in line comment...

On 19-Mar-19 14:05, Sheng Jiang wrote:
> In lines.
> 
> Sheng
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anima [mailto:anima-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
>>     > ANIMA will start to define AFs to enable service automation in
>>     > networks; it will also work on generic aspects of ASA including design
>>     > guidelines and
>>     > lifecycle management including coordination and dependency
>> management.
>>
>> I think that this is a good set of goals, and I'd like to see AFs built, but I'm not
>> seeing them.  
> 
> This is in the scope. Whether the WG participants come up with good AFs, we will see. Actually, we saw some AFs came together with use cases. What we are not sure is the balance between specific AFs for narrow usage or generic AFs that can be reused in many scenarios.
> 
>> What I'd ideally like to see is:
>>
>> 1) some place for enrollment work -- including BRSKI.
> 
> It is already in the proposed work items: BRSKI relevant works, including proxies, "enrollment", adaptions over various network protocols, variations of voucher formats, and etc.
> 
>> 2) a way to finish and revise the ANI work.   This may need rather some
>>    kind of lightweight industrial forum to push interoperability testing
>>    leading to Updates to documents presently in the queue or already
>>    published.
> 
> We believe this is covered. Maybe the word "Works extending ANI" needs be revised? Any suggestion?
> 
>> 3) a way to get AFs brought out.  Maybe an IRTF RG, maybe something else.
> 
> Generic ASAs that can be reused in multiple scenarios are already in the scope. We are not sure about the dedicated ASAs. They may come up with specific use cases. We need to discuss them case by case when we see them. How to arouse people to work on AFs/ASAs is another topic. It is out of the discussion of WG charter, I believe.

Well, many IETF WGs have attached implementation efforts (QUIC is a current
example). I agree that they are not IETF work officially, but it's often the
same people - working under open source rules, not IETF rules. That needs to
be discussed in a side meeting, perhaps (unfortunately I won't be in Prague,
so I can't help with that).

I will take the liberty of reminding people that there is already one 
open source platform for implementing demonstration ASAs and AFs. I'm a
little surprised there hasn't been more interest in it. It needs a secure
ACP, but nobody has given me one of those yet, so it runs insecure
apart from normal firewall protection.

https://github.com/becarpenter/graspy (start with the README and graspy.pdf)

    Brian

> Sheng
> 
>> While not properly the business of the IETF, I don't think that (3) can get much
>> traction until there is a way to bring up a (virtual) ANI on a bunch of VMs or cheap
>> equipment in research labs.
>> Having ANI is like Web 1.0... the real value doesn't come until 2.0.
>>
>> So one thought is, provided that (1) can be satisfied some other way, is to
>> suspend (not shutdown) ANIMA rather than recharter it.  I recognize that such
>> an action might have negative consequences to how various people are able to
>> participate.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works  -=
>> IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> 