[Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF?

"Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com> Fri, 18 November 2016 01:53 UTC

From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com>
To: "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Intent per ASA or per AF?
Thread-Index: AdJBPZCUap75TyB7THivcdpl+3+EcA==
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 01:53:02 +0000
Message-ID: <7f30b33118334c09a54acb9293b2c265@XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/pKsA1tx90M_qFpCAycuKWozWsgw>
Subject: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF?
Precedence: list

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. 

Michael

[Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Michael Behringer (mbehring)
Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Laurent Ciavaglia
Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Brian E Carpenter
Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Michael Behringer (mbehring)
Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? ludwig
Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Michael Richardson
Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Michael Behringer (mbehring)
Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Brian E Carpenter
Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Michael Behringer (mbehring)