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

Hi Michael,
> 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")
Ok.
> 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,
Ok
> or am I missing your point?
> 2. if it does, should this explanation in some form go into the definitions draft?
No clear view on that one.
>
> 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.
Happy to delete.

Regards, Benoit
>
> 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
> .
>