Re: [nmrg] [NMRG] Reminder: RG Last Call for draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-concepts-definitions

Jérôme François <jerome.francois@inria.fr> Tue, 27 October 2020 07:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jerome.francois@inria.fr>
X-Original-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CFF13A0CC1; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.144
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 3FejfSroDmWN; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B20CB3A0C63; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,423,1596492000"; d="scan'208";a="362844224"
Received: from 5-49-187-0.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr (HELO [192.168.1.20]) ([5.49.187.0]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 27 Oct 2020 08:45:04 +0100
From: Jérôme François <jerome.francois@inria.fr>
To: "nmrg@irtf.org" <nmrg@irtf.org>
Cc: "nmrg-chairs@irtf.org" <nmrg-chairs@irtf.org>, Remi Badonnel <remi.badonnel@loria.fr>
References: <6caa3367-eb14-9d1c-0073-b3bb10d61c25@inria.fr> <c58a621d-2c67-f31b-e4e6-17c1be00b36d@inria.fr>
Message-ID: <f7abc8c5-dfd6-1277-7925-2c24413a3a83@inria.fr>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 08:45:03 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c58a621d-2c67-f31b-e4e6-17c1be00b36d@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: fr
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmrg/ZN1w7G-CeYPoujtEV5t2LDdPLfY>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] [NMRG] Reminder: RG Last Call for draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-concepts-definitions
X-BeenThere: nmrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 07:45:09 -0000

Dear all,

Below, the review done by a colleague in CC, Rémi Badonnel (University of Lorraine).

"Very interesting and instructive draft on intent-based management. Some minor 
comments:
-In addition to the examples, would it make sense to provide some 
counter-examples, of what is not an intent (if possible, beyond the notion of 
policies)?
-I fully agree that explainability is an important IBN function, in particular 
from a legal/ethical viewpoint.
-"Policy-based management can be considered an imperative management paradigm": 
some policy based-management systems (such as cfEngine) seem to use a declarative 
style to specify their policies (but with a low/technical-level granularity), how 
shall we position them in comparison to intent-based management?"


Best,
jerome


Le 21/10/2020 à 13:45, Jérôme François a écrit :
> Dear all,
>
> Just a kind reminder that we entered into the last call for the Intent-Based 
> Networking - Concepts and Definitions" draft:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-concepts-definitions/
>
> To progress on RFC publictation, describing the level of support for publication 
> is necessary*. So, your feedback (negative and positive) is also necessary on 
> both technical and editorial quality of the document.  It does not need to be 
> long, in particular if you think the document is ready for IRSG review, but we 
> need to know your opinion.
>
> In order to let you enough time to read and review the document, we decided to 
> extend the deadline to Oct 28.
>
> Best regards,
> Jérôme and Laurent
> NMRG chairs
>
> *https://trac.ietf.org/trac/irtf/wiki/IRTF-RFCs
>