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

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

Rene,


On 30/10/2014 16:50, Rene Struik wrote:
> Hi Brian:
> 
> It is very puzzling to me to see essential deployments that would be a
> test case on viability of the concept of semi-automatic management (in
> casu: constrained networks and devices) being removed from the charter.
> I have not seen any technical justification for ruling this out of order
> (nor do I know who decides on this - consensus?).

Well, it's technically the IESG that charters WGs but they do always
look for rough consensus. However, I don't believe the new wording excludes
IOT, it simply doesn't mention it.

> If one emphasizes so much the "professionally managed" aspect, this
> seems to suggest that whatever "solution" Anima (or, perhaps, simply the
> co-authors of the three anima drafts mentioned in the draft charter?)
> have in mind may not meet or closely approximate the whole idea of
> "autonous" operation (at least, as I understand this after reading all
> drafts referred to in the draft charter and producing 15 pages of
> comments on this).
> 
> I, for one, think we can minimize these differences and define an
> architecture and a set of protocols that mostly only differ in policy
> and configuration settings for "professionally managed" and "highly
> constrained devices and networks". I think I have made this point in my
> extensive comments.

I would be happy with that result. I am interpreting "professionally
managed" very liberally, but it does seem to me that things like
building services networks are both highly constrained and professionally
managed.

> I am happy to make this concrete once the group meets during IETF-91,
> but certainly already declaring things out of order without accompanying
> technical discussion and analysis, effectively stymies this.
> 
> During IETF-91, I think we need to spend much more time on discussing
> draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis and
> draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-04, 

Unfortunately the NMRG, which "owns" those documents, has chosen
not to meet at the IETF site. Your comments were closely studied
during the most recent revision of both drafts. The result is of course
a compromise between the authors' views and yours.

   Brian