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

[Olivier Festor <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg