Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-01 feedback

Let me expand a bit about intent versus configuration. 

For now, I stick to what is written in the document: 

1. Intent does NOT contain configuration. (note: "contain")
2. An autonomic function does not REQUIRE configuration. This does not mean that there couldn't be a function that runs in a default mode using only intent, but could be locally also use some configuration. 

So, to me, intent and configuration will co-exist, but configuration is not part of the autonomic part (which is why I think the doc is actually correct). 

There is a need for conflict resolution. And this works something like this: 

prio 0: default behaviour (without intent)
prio 1: intent
prio 2: other (netconf, SNMP, i2rs, CLI, ...)

In other words, a more specific guidance takes priority over a less specific one. Following this, an intent guidance will be overruled by CLI.  (how the various options in my "prio 2" are sorted is outside scope for this discussion, and I guess someone has worked this out already?) 

For you Benoit, this leads to two questions: 
1. does the above explanation make sense, or am I missing your point? 
2. if it does, should this explanation in some form go into the definitions draft? 

Regarding:
--
3.7 Modularity
Section 3 intro says:

   This section explains the high level goals of Autonomic Networking,
   independent of any specific solutions.

Is this an Autonomic Networking design goal to be modular? Not really
I see this more like a good deployment practice, i.e. if you think about an autonomic protocol, please think of deployment, i.e. modularity
--

I wonder whether we should just delete that section? You are right, this is not specific to AN. 

The other comments are clear, and I'll take care of them. 

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nmrg [mailto:nmrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: 21 July 2014 18:04
> To: Benoit Claise (bclaise)
> Cc: nmrg@irtf.org
> Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-01
> feedback
> 
> Thanks Benoit. Michael has the editing pen so I will only comment on one
> point right now:
> 
> > I guess you want to rephrase that the intent is a general policy above
> > configuration or information for a specific node,
> 
> I think it can also be for a specific role, where a bunch of nodes can all fill
> that role (e.g. an intent that applies to all CE routers, or all AFTRs,...).
> 
> Regards
>    Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nmrg mailing list
> nmrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg