Re: [nmrg] Updating draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-00

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Michael,

Your suggestions looks good. 

One comments: the current definition of autonomic network looks vague. May I propose to modify it: a network which employs autonomic functions network-wide.

Best regards,

Sheng

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anima [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Michael
>Behringer (mbehring)
>Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 9:55 PM
>To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: [Anima] Updating draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-00
>
>NMRG, Anima,
>
>Having gone through feedback, and re-reading the document myself, here is a
>list of changes I'm proposing to make to
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-00:
>
>High level, I think the "meat" of the document, sections 3, 4 and 6 are pretty
>complete and correct. If anyone thinks we're missing an important design
>goal or a non-design goal, please speak up!
>
>Some details:
>
>1. Section 3.1. always refers to "nodes". We should rephrase this to
>"functions". The primary goal here is not to produce a fully autonomic node
>or network, but autonomic functions. For the foreseeable future fully
>autonomic nodes/networks will remain the exception.
>Therefore: s/node/function/ in this section.
>Actually, also later on in the doc the doc references sometimes "nodes" or
>"the network". I suggest to change that to "function".
>
>2. Common infrastructure.
>In my mail
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nmrg/current/msg01512.html I
>suggested to add to the design goals:
>
><section title="Common Autonomic Networking Infrastructure">
>	<t><xref target="I-D.irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis"/> points out that there
>are already a number of fully or partially autonomic functions available today.
>However, they are largely independent, and each has its own methods and
>protocols to communicate, discover, define and distribute policy, etc. </t>
>	<t>The goal of the work on autonomic networking in the IETF is
>therefore not just to create autonomic functions, but to define a common
>infrastructure that autonomic functions can use. This autonomic networking
>infrastructure may contain common control and management functions such
>as messaging, service discovery, negotiation, intent distribution, etc. A
>common approach to define and manage intent is also required. </t>
>	<t>Refer to the reference model below: All the components around the
>"autonomic service agents" should be common components, such that the
>autonomic service agents do not have to replicate common tasks individually.
></t>
>      </section>
>
>Unless I missed it, I haven't seen any negative comments on that section, so
>I'll add it to the new version.
>
>3. Use case section.
>In the same email (link above) I proposed some text for the use case section.
>But frankly, I think this is overtaken by the discussion we had on the list, and
>out of date.
>We also want to drive this document to publication soon, so procedural issues
>such as how to report use cases should really not be there any more.
>I suggest we just remove this section completely, since IMO it is not required
>for the document to be useful and complete. Thoughts?
>
>Am I missing any feedback, or points we discussed? If so, please let me know!
>
>I'm finalising version -01 of the document now. I'll circulate first amongst the
>authors, then post the result.
>
>Michael
>
>_______________________________________________
>Anima mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima