Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF?
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 20 November 2016 19:08 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 4A1B8129685 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:08:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 u1Bz4BxtwQxs for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:08:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22e.google.com (mail-pg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2979A12942F for <anima@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:08:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id f188so122025853pgc.3 for <anima@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:08:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=l2LN/DThE1Lh2inEAiLdJKH+k8Cih7y/8MFATk1Zme0=; b=EnUYCgzQ8MKgGpQK54JQ4p6BnH7FPPvnGwJdxVqbhb43g/fGTRj7hgBBaDEMnKE2lv 8hI11Fz1SCBx8lmKznlW8d3wQ1TNKkD+SIwmN7D/C3AIPVblJkzaPeiCEpT/STsXG4+v Sbkns5hoowy8EXO+CpWMGvIsdmm7DH786jSRl3MGHASZz44ARfwdrCU8fdgNiLlkSd4j oo1k9cN+ooweSNHCQusTIB6YsNDqVzOGnp4Da0R8xeRquctaAPZEAlgCnmzoD+kTBGIm hQgb74MlUfbQaNslVUZY+qRKT1LTwRRMQrqvNuuCf9QZgiRPxbspLTYa2suaFLh94/dA IAbg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=l2LN/DThE1Lh2inEAiLdJKH+k8Cih7y/8MFATk1Zme0=; b=lZ0wyu8Ya7d4tJtsEPZhMIZeph+Je2Gv+G0nbXUdAqTZIb1AUJUckqHtvwXXrW7vCB jyl/1CoTLo5nWQqAlYT19aaE1wEFwQSgGy9iyTtcRgLnQyjm1TqhE+/qtDbY7WzLvPV/ AJ50S5u9TaKcjIVyYIthdXtNgAyKvI/713cOIxjrd9lX0A6Ql+fUVgXA6/uPCJUQl1/j 8W59MExttu+3M1iqKdN6TJCa/GLVjQaciyg4ywEDJwOVWopfNeg6oa+SYXY5fOM6PAFr EXKME4DHk0+8w7KPlDa45CqfLMF4F1mDrnOWJAY2ZQJXzDR8VjjITUuPiSqs3n6bdKJp l53Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01e6EZqA8D9ituXPT4vUorHBqqY9BDcwiK/lq/QOQoCjwrj5NGvdUfMJFF5iVg8gw==
X-Received: by 10.99.218.21 with SMTP id c21mr23250354pgh.67.1479668906434; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:08:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (77.219.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.219.77]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x123sm13815895pgb.3.2016.11.20.11.08.24 for <anima@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:08:25 -0800 (PST)
To: anima@ietf.org
References: <7f30b33118334c09a54acb9293b2c265@XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com> <8220.1479624097@dooku.sandelman.ca> <dd7c5abef45842dd83f52518cbf6c963@XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <890c0598-bcdb-cade-2437-30f4360033c8@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:08:23 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dd7c5abef45842dd83f52518cbf6c963@XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/zzSpjdF_kU9YgOmF0d7Pr7dShBo>
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 19:08:29 -0000
On 21/11/2016 06:36, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote: >> -----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. 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. Brian
- [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Michael Behringer (mbehring)
- Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Laurent Ciavaglia
- Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Michael Behringer (mbehring)
- Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? ludwig
- Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Michael Richardson
- Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Michael Behringer (mbehring)
- Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF? Michael Behringer (mbehring)