Re: [Anima] Pete Resnick's No Objection on charter-ietf-anima-00-17: (with COMMENT)

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 10/31/14 5:17 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Pete,
>> 9th paragraph:
>>
>>     Definition of a discovery functionality for autonomic functions
>>
>> I don't understand what that means. By "functionality" do you mean
>> protocol?
>>
>> Brian's response: "Definition of a discovery protocol for autonomic
>> nodes."
> After some more investigation, this was discussed in 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/anima/current/msg00454.html,
>
>     1) the choice of the term "functionality" instead of "protocol"
>     was used on purpose as to avoid choosing _a priori_ the
>     (de)composition in protocol(s). i.e. one _a posteriori_ / informed
>     decision will be how to "group" the different functionality in one
>     or more protocols (or extension of existing ones).
>
> I thought that Laurent had a valid argument.

Then let's take a shot at rewriting it so that it's clear what the 
intention is:

    The goal of this working group shall be to develop one or more
    protocol specifications (or extensions to existing protocols) to
    address the following problem areas. These were selected to according
    to the analyzed technical gaps in draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis:

    o Discovery for autonomic nodes

    o Negotiation for autonomic nodes
       Starting point: draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol

    o Bootstrapping a trust infrastructure
       Starting point: draft-pritikin-bootstrapping-keyinfrastructures

    o Separated Autonomic Control Plane
       Starting point: draft-behringer-autonomic-control-plane

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]