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

"Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com> Wed, 23 July 2014 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <mbehring@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696B21A0146 for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 ZCYLoeXIyA72 for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B67B1A00F0 for <nmrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5661; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406133481; x=1407343081; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ZEmW1ksuP1DW2UlhA3xtx7cRrYHxr976tebBOrXqsSQ=; b=XBMOv4mMBEfcd9obmzXHesADiaHCq7yQfXV6fafopL+/8FnR3kaPgWJe zRhk+C+rKA6i5msmT8Az3IZcFG91uFpAqrhc4ZmbPUyebjlp8ON5svlYl Ic/LqXah0wDHzc0+WHxFEOww89bQ8vAB2UQhDzSjNouvPpBuo6jOAthb6 w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhwFAAvkz1OtJA2F/2dsb2JhbABZgw5SVwTHWwqHRQGBCxZ2hAMBAQEEAQEBawsMBAIBCBEEAQELHQcnCxQJCAIEAQ0FCBOIJw3AVBeOcycxBwaDKIEYBYotpUCDSGyBA0I
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,718,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="342245462"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2014 16:38:00 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6NGbxCH011478 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:37:59 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.221]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:37:59 -0500
From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com>
To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>, Olivier Festor <olivier.festor@inria.fr>, "nmrg@irtf.org" <nmrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-01 feedback
Thread-Index: AQHPpRJ4n42notfsnEKKX2aXPrYPepuuHK2AgAAQWID//7AD4A==
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:37:59 +0000
Message-ID: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF21BF2D3E@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
References: <53CD5D41.6050302@cisco.com>, <B46AC40D-C909-4EFC-9521-4F7302622DFA@inria.fr> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AED1F0E@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AED1F0E@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.82.238.193]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmrg/EkyMwhzxyCWPQYZ4boP4JBf-FmA
Cc: "<olivier.festor@univ-lorraine.fr> Festor" <olivier.festor@univ-lorraine.fr>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-01 feedback
X-BeenThere: nmrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Management Research Group discussion list <nmrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/nmrg>, <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/nmrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:nmrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg>, <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:38:03 -0000

Agree with Sheng, this affects only the definition of "fully autonomic node" (the network definition is based on that one). 

Unless you feel strongly, Olivier, if we could leave it as is, because 

1) the list of self-* properties is actually not limited, and other than the usual self-CHOP do pop up. And
2) we might get into silly discussions where some node doesn't implement self-optimisation, and you could then argue that strictly speaking it's not autonomic. I don't think this type of discussion would help us to progress.

Thoughts? 
Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nmrg [mailto:nmrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Sheng Jiang
> Sent: 23 July 2014 12:18
> To: Olivier Festor; nmrg@irtf.org
> Cc: <olivier.festor@univ-lorraine.fr> Festor
> Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-01
> feedback
> 
> Hi, Olivier,
> 
> In the definition draft, we have defined the terms of autonomic network
> (which probably should be changed into the "partial autonomic network")
> and the "full autonomic network". What you mentioned is refering to "full
> autonomic network".
> 
> Sheng
> ________________________________________
> From: nmrg [nmrg-bounces@irtf.org] on behalf of Olivier Festor
> [olivier.festor@inria.fr]
> Sent: 23 July 2014 23:19
> To: nmrg@irtf.org
> Cc: <olivier.festor@univ-lorraine.fr> Festor
> Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-01
> feedback
> 
> Dear benoît and colleagues,
> 
> I would like to comment on your point #1: Logical OR between the
> functions.
> 
> If one considers Autonomic as defined in the original paper, and how it is
> experienced on various use cases, the functions must be all there to have a
> real « autonomic » system.
> I recommend the reading of work we did a couple of years ago on network
> renumbering with R. Droms and how the different self-* features when
> combined, lead to a real autonomic system.
> The paper which was published in IEEE Communications Magazine can be
> found at in a draft version: hal.inria.fr/inria-00531215/PDF/
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> /Olivier Festor
> 
> 
> 
> Le 21 juil. 2014 à 20:34, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> a écrit :
> 
> > Dear all,
> >
> > - Make it clear that the definition means a logical OR
> >    Autonomic: Self-managing (self-configuring, self-protecting, self-
> >    healing and self-optimizing); however, allowing high-level guidance
> >    by a central entity, through intent.
> > -
> >    Intent: An abstract, high level policy used to operate the network
> >    autonomically.  Its scope is an autonomic domain, such as an
> >    enterprise network.  It does not contain configuration or information
> >    for a specific node.  It may contain information pertaining to nodes
> >    with a specific role.
> >
> > Well in the end, configuration or information for a specific node will be
> involved.
> > I guess you want to rephrase that the intent is a general policy above
> configuration or information for a specific node, dealing with the intent you
> want to have from the network.
> >
> > -  When I read "It requires no configuration" in ...
> >
> >    Autonomic Function: A feature or function which requires no
> >    configuration, and can derive all required information either through
> >    self-knowledge, discovery or through intent.
> >
> >    OR
> >
> >    Fully Autonomic Node: A node which employs exclusively autonomic
> >    functions.  It requires no configuration.
> >
> > ... I wondered about an initial configuration before a device is shipped.
> Autonomic or not?
> > Coincidently, this was just discussed at the time of typing these lines, by
> Brian, presenting in NMRG.
> > I understand that this is automatic, right?
> > And I see a extra definition in draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis-00
> >
> >   o  Automatic: A process that occurs without human intervention, with
> >       step-by-step execution of rules.  However it relies on humans
> >       defining the sequence of rules, so is not Autonomic in the full
> >       sense.  For example, a start-up script is automatic but not
> >       autonomic.
> >
> > draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions would benefit from this
> > definition in my opinion, and a few words on the difference between
> > autonomic and automatic
> >
> > -
> > Northbound interface. These days, with the SDN/controller story, this is a
> confusing term.
> > I would rephrase the section and the text inside
> > OLD:
> > 3.4.  Simplification of the Northbound Interfaces
> > OLD:
> > 3.4.  Simplification of the Autonomic Node Northbound Interfaces
> >
> > -
> > 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
> >
> > Regards, Benoit
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nmrg mailing list
> > nmrg@irtf.org
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nmrg mailing list
> nmrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg
> _______________________________________________
> nmrg mailing list
> nmrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg