Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF?

On 18/11/2016 14:53, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
> One question that just came up: Should Intent be designed per ASA or per AF? 
> 
> My suggestion previously was to segment Intent into sections per Autonomic Functions. 
> 
> Example: Intent for the bootstrap function could be: 
> - allow bootstrapping new devices only during maintenance window
> 
> For such Intent, action could be taken on the registrar (one ASA of the AF), or on the proxy (another ASA of the same AF). 
> 
> It seems to me an author of an AF might like all ASAs of his AF to know about the Intent, because the proxy may also take actions.

Yes, I think so. Again we hit the question of granularity and whether this is actually
Intent, but a policy like that might be added to Intent-for-BRSKI, and both registrars
and proxies need to know it.

So I'd expect we will need intent to be in sections that are per-function (and we will
therefore need a method of guaranteeing that function names are unique). In fact we get
a more general result if we simply say that intent is divided in sections that have
unique labels; then it's easy to support intent per-function, per-objective, or
even per-geography if we want.

    Brian

> 
> Michael
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> 