Re: [nmrg] IRSG Review of NMRG document draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-04.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 13/12/2014 05:31, Michael Behringer wrote:
...
>> P4
>>     • You restrict the operation of autonomic networks to work by
>> pari-wise protocols.negotiations. In particular, you say
>>         • " peer-to-peer dialogues  between the parties that make up
>> the closed loop.  Such dialogues
>> require two-way "discussion" or "negotiation" between each pair of 
>> peers involved in the loop, so they cannot readily use typical
>> top-down command-response protocols.between the parties that make up
>> the closed loop.  Such dialogues require two-way "discussion" or
>> "negotiation" between each pair peers involved in the loop, so they
>> cannot readily use typical top down command-response protocols.”
>>     • While you are quite explicit about this, I don’t see any
>> fundamental reason why the protocols and negotiations could not be
>> multi-party, or exploit consensus protocols like Paxos. It’s probably
>> OK to go ahead and not address this, but since it occurred to me it
>> might also occur to other readers well-versed in distributed algorithms.
> 
> Very good point. Clarified that.

Just a comment: multi-party protocols get very complex and in
particular, guaranteed consensus or consensus within a defined
time becomes challenging. In the context of an IETF protocol
that can be extended piecemeal by a large variety of designers,
restricting ourselves to two-party negotiation seems wise.

   Brian