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

Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> Wed, 23 July 2014 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangsheng@huawei.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 7FD421B29B6 for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ApTHncEQLxNF for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 083121B2954 for <nmrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.24.2.119 (EHLO nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg03-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.4.3-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ARZ69185; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:18:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.249]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:18:03 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
To: 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: AQHPpRJ5+Gtc1mwka0GUIBEtrykXxputQr+AgACVZ3g=
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:18:01 +0000
Message-ID: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AED1F0E@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <53CD5D41.6050302@cisco.com>, <B46AC40D-C909-4EFC-9521-4F7302622DFA@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <B46AC40D-C909-4EFC-9521-4F7302622DFA@inria.fr>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.131.102]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020201.53CFE041.0142,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0, ip=169.254.7.249, so=2013-05-26 15:14:31, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: e8e732d5c610b1b12c2e694f4abda992
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmrg/exPV0zcVt83MpVKeIiekfp8diiI
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 16:18:24 -0000

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