Re: [homenet] [Anima] ANIMA scope + homenet interaction + charter v15

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

> Dear all,
>
> I agree with Rene and Brian on the need to consider constrained networks.
> However, I don't think that "professionally-managed networks" 
> automatically exclude such environments.
>
> As Barbara S. mentioned in 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet/current/msg04008.html, 
> there can be multiple scenarios with different roles, and different 
> devices being managed.
Exactly.

Regards, Benoit
>
> My opinion is that covering the scenario of professionally-managed 
> consrained (and less constrained) networks is a challenging one, from 
> which we could derive "good" common, re-usable protocols/components.
>
> Best regards, Laurent.
>
>
> On 28/10/2014 23:48, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 29/10/2014 10:37, Rene Struik wrote:
>>> Hi Benoit:
>>>
>>> -1 on you suggestion #1.
>>>
>>> I do not think suggesting "constrained networks and devices" to be
>>> suddenly out of scope helps: it is one of the main areas where
>>> semi-automatic management is imperative.
>> Rene has a point. My +1 was with the idea of limiting the initially
>> worked-out use cases, and avoiding any direct interference with
>> progress in homenet. But understanding the requirements for
>> constrained networks is desirable. What I don't know is whether
>> those requirements can in fact be met by the same infrastructure
>> components that we need for "professionally managed" networks.
>> There may simply not be enough overlap between "nimble and
>> heterogeneous" and "managed and homogeneous."
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>> If one has a bootstrapping
>>> solution and configuration negotiation/synchronization protocol that is
>>> not useful in constrained settings, what is the point? In my mind, it
>>> seems much more prudent to design schemes with constrained networks and
>>> devices and failure recovery models that apply there (configuration
>>> mismatch due to sleepy devices, malfunctioning data store, etc.), where
>>> these would then obviously also fit the less constrained,
>>> "professionally managed" networks. Design for the"nimble", so that both
>>> "nimble" and "fatter" networks can use this.
>>>
>>> This also has the advantage that one is forced to think in terms of many
>>> potential actors, rather than a few ones, which helps in viewing
>>> solutions in terms of heterogeneous rather than homogeneous deployment
>>> models.
>>>
>>> I have done all my reviews of nmrg drafts
>>> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/anima/current/msg00327.html) with
>>> constrained networks and devices in mind. It would be a shame if one
>>> would now narrow down the focus and rule this (future almost ubiquitous)
>>> deployment category out of scope.
>>>
>>> Or, is this a political ploy, so as to avoid a turf war with homenet
>>> people?
>>>
>>> If that is the case, it would be much more prudent to have another BoF
>>> to iron out some of these issues. {This may be prudent for reasons I
>>> already indicated in the same #00327 message as well - I will  not
>>> repeat those arguments here.}
>>>
>>> Best regards, Rene
>>>
>>> On 10/28/2014 4:13 PM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> [sorry for double-posting, but we need the specific feedback from the
>>>> HOMENET community]
>>>>
>>>> 1. scope
>>>> I finished reading the ANIMA mailing list and, based on the feedback,
>>>> Joel, Ted, and I would like to clarify the ANIMA scope for "the set of
>>>> specific reusable infrastructure components that support autonomic
>>>> interactions between devices" (quoting the charter)
>>>>
>>>> The charter currently mentions:
>>>>      The ANIMA working group will initially focus on enterprise, ISP
>>>> networks and IoT.
>>>>
>>>> Multiple tracks were discussed on the mailing list.
>>>>      * keep enterprise, ISP networks and IoT
>>>>      * focus on enterprise and ISP networks
>>>>      * everything, but the initial focus is enterprise and carrier?
>>>>      * professionally-managed networks
>>>>
>>>> It seems to us that "professionally-managed networks" is what ANIMA is
>>>> after. And it's potentially a distraction to try to segment the scope
>>>> based on enterprise, ISP, homenet, or IoT. What is IoT after all?
>>>>
>>>> OLD:     The ANIMA working group will initially focus on enterprise,
>>>> ISP networks and IoT.
>>>> NEW:    The ANIMA working group focuses on professionally-managed
>>>> networks.
>>>>
>>>> Does it sound about right?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Overlap with HOMENET
>>>> This distinction in point 1 might help regarding the potential overlap
>>>> of the solution for distributed IPv6 prefix management.
>>>> Btw, the new charter has been adapted:
>>>> OLD:  A solution for distributed IPv6 prefix management within a network.
>>>> NEW: the solution for distributed IPv6 prefix management within a
>>>> large-scale network
>>>>
>>>> Also, The HOMENET collaboration has been stressed in the charter.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Others
>>>> I believe I took care of the others changes proposed on the mailing.
>>>> If this is not the case, let me know.
>>>> At this point in time, please provide concrete change to the charter
>>>> text if some issues persist.
>>>> Charter v15 has just been posted, and you can review the detailed
>>>> changes at
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-anima%2Fwithmilestones-00-14.txt&difftype=--html&submit=Go!&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-anima%2Fwithmilestones-00-15.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4. Security Advisor.
>>>> I have requested one for ANIMA to the security ADs.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Benoit
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> homenet mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>> _______________________________________________
>> Anima mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>>
>
> -- 
>
> Bien cordialement, Best regards,
>
> *Laurent Ciavaglia*
>
> Advanced Internet Research
>
> Bell Labs | Alcatel Lucent
>
> phone: [phone]
>
> email: [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> linkedin: laurentciavaglia <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/laurentciavaglia/>
>
> address: Route de Villejust | 91620 Nozay | France
>