Re: [Int-dir] [Anima] An IOT DIR review of draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane

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

Hi Toerless,

Yes, section 1.1 works for me. Personally I hope that some of
what we do here can later become self-deploying in unmanaged
networks, but that is out of WG charter at the moment and
purely a dream.

Regards
   Brian

On 10/05/2018 18:14, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> 
> Brian: as part of the fixes for Pascals review, i added a section 1.1,
> applicability & scope that mentions the "professionally managed"
> and also has one small paragraph at the end re. constrained devices/
> networks. I hope this provides qukc/useful scoping of what the ACP
> does.
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> 
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:17:01AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Pascal,
>>
>> Great review!
>>
>>> -          Section 3; the IOT certainly could use an ACP. It would be useful to scope the feature that is proposed in this document, whether it is compatible of not with constrained environments, whether it needs adaptations, point on Michael's enrollment draft. It would also be useful to indicate whether the ACP works between L3 bridges, IOW whether ACP operates the same (over IP) regardless of the packet forwarding layer in the data plane;
>>
>> Perhaps this point belongs in draft-ietf-anima-reference-model. ANIMA is chartered for "professionally managed" networks, and the reference model says: "At a later stage ANIMA may define a scope for constrained nodes with a reduced ANI [autonomic infrastructure] and well-defined minimal functionality.  They are currently out of scope." So while your point is very valid, it's been considered out of scope so far.
>>
>> I'll leave the rest of your excellent comments to the ACP authors.
>>
>> Thanks
>>    Brian
>