Re: [nmrg] Autonomic Use Cases

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Michael,

Your text for "Design Goal" and "Guidelines for Case Studies" looks good.

One more thing I would like to add: the use cases could be written up with the assumption that the common infrastructure support (for example, the negotiation ability among devices) was already in the place. The use cases (documents) could focus on the scenarios, requirements and autonomic functions.

Regards,

Sheng

>-----Original Message-----
>From: nmrg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Michael Behringer
>(mbehring)
>Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 7:47 AM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: [nmrg] Autonomic Use Cases
>
>NMRG,
>
>During the meeting we mentioned the need to document use cases. This
>section in the definitions draft is so far empty. Since we should have that
>section BEFORE working out the use cases, I drafted something up here.
>
>I also realised that while we haven't really written down in the draft that the
>key point of this work really is to work out common infrastructure
>requirements. So I'm also suggesting an additional short section in the Design
>Goals section:
>
>      <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>
>
>Comments? Does this capture the idea well?
>
>And then, the use case section could look like this:
>
>      <section title="Guidelines for Case Studies">
>	<t>Case studies and problem statements are mandatory to understand
>common requirements for autonomic functions. This section explains how
>case studies should be outlined and what they should describe:
>        <list style="symbols">
>	  <t>Title</t>
>	  <t>Problem Statement: An explanation which problem is being
>addressed, with information about existing solutions and their
>shortcomings.</t>
>	  <t>Intended user / administrator experience: The goal of autonomic
>networking is to simplify network administration and usage. Use cases should
>point out how their experience differs from current solutions. If a use case
>depends on configuration, it may include configuration samples, although
>obviously the goal is to reduce or eliminate configuration. </t>
>	  <t>Intent: Strictly speaking intent is part of the administrator
>experience, but should probably explained explicitly with a high-level view on
>how the autonomic function could be defined in intent (if required). </t>
>	  <t>Local knowledge: What the function needs to know about the
>capabilities of the node itself, and which local resources need to be
>accessed.</t>
>	  <t>Communication requirements: The requirements for message
>exchange, discovery, negotiation, etc with other autonomic nodes. </t>
>        </list>
>	</t>
>	<t>Use cases are not required to outline a solution in detail, nor to
>specify precise protocol or intent details. They are used at this point to
>determine a consolidated approach to developping an autonomic networking
>infrastructure. </t>
>      </section>
>
>Comments?
>Michael
>
>_______________________________________________
>nmrg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg