IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com> Sun, 20 November 2016 17:36 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 6AABC1294AA for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 09:36:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.018
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.018 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_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 mNTlEC0xnDOc for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 09:36:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55F97128B37 for <anima@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 09:36:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1256; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1479663391; x=1480872991; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=cFhXVnm4pr88kdpVPZvyCnYHcO4mjTdbJ+muojAOLpA=; b=PovPKK6sIfaG0ATefwXIUECS45yR7xzmHATmKq30J+HSVdbCuWOyetvi Nl9KhIpbu2nABocsPaxpmMiVnpO+AVxim8AQo5xqPgNFLpeZr/XNZSQWJ tZ4OW6wn3GSIzo/o6LpaWUGPTcGV99IHBRm+3gOIM6hWlbEnjt6taXAFq E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DVAQBm3jFY/51dJa1dGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBgzgBAQEBAR+BWAeNOJcRlG6CBYURgRACgX0/FAECAQEBAQEBAWIohGgBAQEEOj8MBAIBCBEEAQEBHgkHMhQJCAEBBA4FCIhlqR+LSwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARyGPIRaiioFmk0BkG+QLo1fhAoBHjeBEoVBcocBgQwBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,522,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="173498369"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Nov 2016 17:36:30 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (xch-aln-008.cisco.com [173.36.7.18]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uAKHaUBR004439 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 20 Nov 2016 17:36:30 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-006.cisco.com (173.37.102.16) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:36:29 -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; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:36:29 -0600
From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Thread-Topic: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF?
Thread-Index: AdJBPZCUap75TyB7THivcdpl+3+EcAB7d5OAAAo/4aA=
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 17:36:29 +0000
Message-ID: <dd7c5abef45842dd83f52518cbf6c963@XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com>
References: <7f30b33118334c09a54acb9293b2c265@XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com> <8220.1479624097@dooku.sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <8220.1479624097@dooku.sandelman.ca>
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: [10.65.65.8]
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/s7fuS4EgR0CK_BFyG2-zRolcUAc>
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 17:36:32 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca]
> Sent: 20 November 2016 07:42
> To: Michael Behringer (mbehring) <mbehring@cisco.com>
> Cc: anima@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF?
> 
> 
> 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.

Not sure I completely understand, and not sure that's what I wanted to say. My point was that a policy like above could be implemented on the proxy as well as the registrar. Maybe in some cases on both. So, segmenting per function seems more useful than by ASA. 

Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email