Re: [nmrg] [Anima] Updating draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-00

>> >> The point is how much scale of autonomic function can be called an
>> >> autonomic network. Say, if there is a network with hundreds devices,
>> >> two of these devices has been deployed some autonomic functions. Can
>> >> the network be claimed as an autonomic network? "Network wide" does
>> >> not mean every devices. It means a large portion of the network have
>> >> autonomic functions.
>> >
>> >The fundamental question is whether we want to include autonomic
>> >functions that for example just involve two devices. And I would
>> >strongly suggest YES, for example I can see improvements on VRRP in the
>> >future as an autonomic function (you could already claim some limited
>> >autonomy, in fact). We want to cover that, right?
>>
>> That's a valid use case for autonomic function deployment. But, with these
>> two devices autonomic hot standby or backup each other, should the whole
>> network be called an autonomic network? If you think "network-wide" is a
>> too high threshold for autonomic network, we can work out some lower
>> description.
>
>Indeed, many people will probably imply that what we call an "autonomic
>network" is actually what we define as a "fully autonomic network".
>Maybe the better phrase would be "partially autonomic network".

This sounds better for me.

>But, no doubt we'll have more discussions around this at the IETF. I suggest to
>leave it for now, discuss at NMRG how people feel we should call it. OK?

That's ok, for sure. :)

Sheng

>Michael
>
>> Sheng
>> _______________________________________________
>> Anima mailing list
>> Anima@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima