Re: [Anima] [Closed] Re: Shepherd review draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-09

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 20/06/2018 03:38, Michael Richardson wrote:
> On 31/05/18 04:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 01/06/2018 07:31, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>> Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>      > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 03:07:15PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>      >> > I would prefer to have the simple definition "ANI == systems that support
>>>      >> > both BRSKI and ACP" in the doc itself. Threre is really no single authoritative
>>>      >> > normative document for ANI, so it should simply be stated equally in BRSKI and
>>>      >> > ACP. Rest of text is fine.
>>>      >>
>>>      >> I'm not getting what you are suggesting.
>>>      >> I think you are saying that we shouldn't point at ACP for the ANI term, but
>>>      >> rather define it ourselves?
>>>
>>>      > Yes.
>>>
>>> okay, I've copied text:
>>>
>>>     ANI:  "Autonomic Network Infrastructure".  The ANI is the
>>>           infrastructure to enable Autonomic Networks.  It includes ACP,
>>>           BRSKI and GRASP.  Every Autonomic Network includes the ANI,
>>>           but not every ANI network needs to include autonomic functions
>>>           beyond the ANI (nor intent).  An ANI network without further
>>>           autonomic functions can for example support secure zero touch bootstrap
>>>           and stable connectivity for SDN networks - see
>>>           [I-D.ietf-anima-stable-connectivity]
>>>
>>
>> Wrong answer, IMHO.
>>
>> draft-ietf-anima-reference-model defines the ANI at some length.
>> That should be the (informative) reference for basic terminology.
> 
> I think that you'd like us to change the text to say:
> 
>              <t hangText="ANI:">The Autonomic Network Infrastructure as
>              defined by <xref target="I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model" />.
>              This document details specific requirements for pledges,
>              proxies and registrars when they are part of an ANI.</t>
> 
> is this correct?  Or did you want us to retain some other words above?
> 

Personally, I'm happy with the reference (and with it being informational).
Duplication of definitions always creates a risk of confusion.

   Brian