IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 20 November 2016 08:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 25937129596 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 00:27:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 tgZ545pwE4HR for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 00:27:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D74C12958C for <anima@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 00:27:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (cl-27.chi-03.us.sixxs.net [IPv6:2604:8800:100:1a::2]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23DBD1F914; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 08:27:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 43B2F3407; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 15:41:37 +0900 (KST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com>
In-reply-to: <7f30b33118334c09a54acb9293b2c265@XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com>
References: <7f30b33118334c09a54acb9293b2c265@XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com> message dated "Fri, 18 Nov 2016 01:53:02 +0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 15:41:37 +0900
Message-ID: <8220.1479624097@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/nU8u7GYYDdkM5tfRxS_ESUD75Xg>
Cc: "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF?
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 08:27:15 -0000

Michael Behringer (mbehring) <mbehring@cisco.com> 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

I agree that this is a useful policy.

I come back to such pseudo-time-based Intents to wonder how they work.
We discussed this a year ago... and never, I thought, reached consensus.

I think that the answer to that would tell me how Intents should be
partitioned.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email