IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com> Mon, 21 November 2016 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mbehring@cisco.com>
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 98C9512956D for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:19:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.019
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 TF9uhse0E_5q for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:19:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 022AB129AE8 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:19:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=787; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1479748773; x=1480958373; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=//eLJ3p4+zKtT1EbrfDNrk3S4GriKqayLPROLMpbFtU=; b=iWNwAqSs0wQaFMEjRlLgNdaZTb1YDvnSHAjEIdFqzSTv9ZEvU6FHoghR ur7lVKF4oBaFEdH/I9Di9dQ2uwnGFRHfFfVSINyQhdqnZvZzcXCvuGiEQ ka0DVbWGU8YISIJeK2LDOaCrxj7nMuA1t9F+cw+i7Y1xbn3hC9nB+85r7 Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BCBQA6LDNY/5pdJa1dGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBgzgBAQEBAR+BX6RLlG6CBYURgRACggNAEwECAQEBAQEBAWIohGgBAQEDATpECwIBCDYQMiUBAQQBGohdCK00i0wBAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBAQEghjyEWooqBY5ri2IBkG+QLpFpASACM4EShUGIN4EMAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,528,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="349332473"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Nov 2016 17:19:33 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-009.cisco.com (xch-aln-009.cisco.com [173.36.7.19]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uALHJXPY000317 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:19:33 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-006.cisco.com (173.37.102.16) by XCH-ALN-009.cisco.com (173.36.7.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:19:32 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-006.cisco.com ([173.37.102.16]) by XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com ([173.37.102.16]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:19:32 -0600
From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF?
Thread-Index: AdJBPZCUap75TyB7THivcdpl+3+EcAB7d5OAAAo/4aAAD9S8gAAhoQ7A
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:19:32 +0000
Message-ID: <ccf138932511457297b1108a3baa4c94@XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com>
References: <7f30b33118334c09a54acb9293b2c265@XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com> <8220.1479624097@dooku.sandelman.ca> <dd7c5abef45842dd83f52518cbf6c963@XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com> <890c0598-bcdb-cade-2437-30f4360033c8@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <890c0598-bcdb-cade-2437-30f4360033c8@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.55.238.134]
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/qI_nWIJZGuA4zqb8ltulJDH-W5Y>
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: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:19:51 -0000

> This conversation strengthens my conviction that we should leave this as
> flexible as possible, because the requirements will change with experience.
> In other words, label each segment of Intent - and the label may well be the
> name of an autonomic function - but do not make rules about the labels.
> 
> That way there is flexibility for the future.

In principle, I agree, we want to be as flexible as possible. But the ANI MUST be able to segment Intent into components. So I think we can only permit "segment types" that the ANI understands and knows how to handle. 

In that, I think we can only define "AN-function" and "AN-ASA" at this moment, at least there is no other clear option right now. My point, we do need some rules. 

Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email