Re: [Anima] "virtual out-of-band" ... or some minor non-ACP-number comments on Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-25.txt

["Michael H. Behringer" <[e-mail]>]

I still prefer the definition "virtual out of band".

An "overlay" (secure or not) depends on correct configuration of the 
underlay. The ACP does NOT depend on configuration in the underlay, that 
is what makes it special.

I haven't seen the definition "virtual out of band" anywhere else, and 
it is the most precise way to describe it.

Michael

On 30/06/2020 00:06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Say "secure overlay" to emphasise the point, but yes.
>
> The draft I submitted yesterday "describes a simple method of forming an ACP immediately above the transport layer" which is indeed precisely a secure overlay.
>
> Regards
>     Brian
>
> On 30-Jun-20 00:45, William Atwood wrote:
>> Is "overlay" the right word?
>>
>> I agree that it is physically in-band, and virtually out-of-band.  Isn't
>> that the definition of "overlay"?
>>
>>    Bill
>>
>> On 2020-06-28 11:02 p.m., Michael Richardson wrote:
>>> Attention This email originates from outside the concordia.ca domain. //
>>> Ce courriel provient de l'exterieur du domaine de concordia.ca
>>> On 2020-06-23 10:31 p.m., [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-25
>>>
>>>
>>> yes, I read the diffs :-)
>>>
>>> -   This document describes a modular design for a self-forming, self-
>>> -   managing and self-protecting ACP, which is a virtual in-band network
>>> -   designed to be as independent as possible of configuration,
>>>
>>> +   This document describes a modular design for a self-forming, self-
>>> +   managing and self-protecting ACP, which is a virtual out-of-band
>>> +   network designed to be as independent as possible of configuration,
>>>
>>> This change from being a virtual in-band network to a virtual
>>> out-of-band network must have been in response to some comments... It
>>> seems a big change in some ways.  I guess it makes this text consistent
>>> with the abstract which has said virtual out-of-band for awhile now.
>>>
>>> But, I do have to wonder if we are creating confusion by claiming that
>>> this is an out-of-band mechanism, even though it's really an in-band
>>> mechanism.  It's just virtually-out.
>>>
>>> I actually do want to start a bike-shed issue here?
>>> Are we describing ourself wrong?  Maybe there is some portmanteau that
>>> would be more accurate?  I think that the above sentence is essentially
>>> the elevator pitch for all of ANIMA.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is also a bunch of other text that has been added to the
>>> Introduction, which I think confuses more than it enlightens.
>>> Or at least needs a better copy-edit.
>>>
>>> A number of other new sections (9.4..) need a copy-edit to fix some
>>> missing words.  I will try to help Toerless with that via github.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Anima mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima