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

Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> Fri, 31 October 2014 05:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11EE91A8ABC; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 2nPqv5yh2C0W; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 031521A8AC0; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BOG18809; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 05:53:22 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.34) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 05:53:21 +0000
Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.22]) by nkgeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:53:17 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
To: Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [homenet] [Anima] ANIMA scope + homenet interaction + charter v15
Thread-Index: AQHP9CELHPsbSkuB0kOBZR+m5fg3ypxJsn3Q
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 05:53:16 +0000
Message-ID: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AF6C46E@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <544FF8FC.5090103@cisco.com> <95338658-B4F2-4634-AC7B-7B893C4DEF2E@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <95338658-B4F2-4634-AC7B-7B893C4DEF2E@iki.fi>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.145]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/n__exGpxP5_aAtffO1dQkfgF_ic
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [homenet] [Anima] ANIMA scope + homenet interaction + charter v15
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 05:53:27 -0000

>I would personally rather drop prefix management. At least, the current
>proposed solution is DHCPv6 PD plus lot of marketing plus one extra thing
>(role) minus tons of existing functionality. I would rather stick the role into PD,
>than reinvent the protocol.

DHCPv6 PD has only solve the prefix request and assign process based on the preconditions:

a) the requesting router knows the prefix length it should request;
b) the requesting router knows what device to send the request;
c) The requested device have enough resource for the request.

However, human configuration or human intervention are needed to meet these preconditions. The current proposed solution focuses on to autonomic processes to solve these preconditions.

Best regards,

Sheng

>If there is not something more novel there (that is, not hierarchical PD in
>disguise), I do not see the point.
>
>> 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%2Fd
>oc%2Fcharter-ietf-anima%2Fwithmilestones-00-14.txt&difftype=--html&sub
>mit=Go!&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-a
>nima%2Fwithmilestones-00-15.txt
>
>I think it is mostly fine, although the use of term ‘autonomous’ for
>essentially (on high level) managed devices that perform some low-level
>autonomic functions sounds still strange to me. I guess I could live with it
>though.
>
>Cheers,
>
>-Markus
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>homenet mailing list
>homenet@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet