Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-01 feedback
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 23 July 2014 20:08 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 7DE401A01D9 for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 rMCAGTCydFgR for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 994BF1A00B7 for <nmrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ho1so8445089wib.14 for <nmrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=PXANDMd9MDZZLkhodxfTO+No332K9x1OtSacTuWK8EE=; b=Mup9ltwSb2SwT7KldS8BdAlDpVQzi+OCH5s14Em+kTM2uLFHtBUfQpouwfefAGOG4/ h1CzUZofHlz5fJtAtFPe0nYZhIlcaFcbGeuLROjTtFbYjW/6AMptzakAQ2CHrs2NMujU jg/0SPgd94dRtsLxNj9MK354ILGlxLTqbXoipJm5EPsY+4D51EM84VuhJX3A/Uw9Mb6m L29hqxKVt77P8ggWkIe2HgCQ8sLGab++KOe/XAx1UO+fqawRrzwIJLxr2YOkiPNKqAX3 sl0GnQtcgm6ZRu+y1J64jPEssEUCOdkCr55g3eV+JkDjrfuCdcs32GHjEp48JmiFWvBl 8wSw==
X-Received: by 10.180.126.8 with SMTP id mu8mr28175462wib.10.1406146112138; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [31.133.177.122] (dhcp-b17a.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.177.122]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fs17sm9035798wjc.6.2014.07.23.13.08.29 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53D01644.8030208@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:08:36 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Alexander Clemm (alex)" <alex@cisco.com>
References: <53CD5D41.6050302@cisco.com>, <B46AC40D-C909-4EFC-9521-4F7302622DFA@inria.fr> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AED1F0E@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF21BF2D3E@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <DBC595ED2346914F9F81D17DD5C32B571C7AD399@xmb-rcd-x05.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <DBC595ED2346914F9F81D17DD5C32B571C7AD399@xmb-rcd-x05.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmrg/rhvBdBZ85Hs5jjuCqMM-7fOpNZU
Cc: "<olivier.festor@univ-lorraine.fr> Festor" <olivier.festor@univ-lorraine.fr>, "nmrg@irtf.org" <nmrg@irtf.org>
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 20:08:36 -0000
On 24/07/2014 05:56, Alexander Clemm (alex) wrote: > Actually, I agree with Olivier here. IMHO it really should be "and", not "or". If it's "or", the concept of autonomic becomes almost meaningless, as the label can then be applied widely to anything displaying some self-* property. Alex, that may be true in the academic view, but the pragmatic view that we heard in the BOF today is that operators prefer a small amount of AN now rather than aiming at 100% AN at some undefined future date. To me that argues strongly for the "or" approach. I heard it said that "if there's no control loop, it's not properly autonomic." I don't get that. I would rather say "if there's no human brain input, it's autonomic for all practical purposes." (That's deliberately provocative, I know :-) In fact perhaps the document should make an explicit statement that we are talking about a practical, partial form of AN and not complete AN in any formal sense. That said, I do agree that we should include a citation or two of review articles on AN or Autonomic Computing - perhaps to point out that we are *not* claiming to boil that ocean. Brian > The question is which boundaries you draw around a component/system/network that you are branding as autonomic. This also gets to the other aspect of "partial" vs "fully" autonomic raised by Sheng, which is a distinction which I do not find helpful - either an entity is autonomic, or it is not. To me, an entity that is "partially" autonomic is not autonomic at all, however, it is an indication that it could be decomposed into several components or functions, some of which being autonomic while others are not. The "partially autonomic" entity is thus an entity which contains some aspects/components which are autonomic and some which are not. > > --- Alex > > -----Original Message----- > From: nmrg [mailto:nmrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Behringer (mbehring) > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:38 AM > To: Sheng Jiang; Olivier Festor; nmrg@irtf.org > Cc: <olivier.festor@univ-lorraine.fr> Festor > Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-01 feedback > > Agree with Sheng, this affects only the definition of "fully autonomic node" (the network definition is based on that one). > > Unless you feel strongly, Olivier, if we could leave it as is, because > > 1) the list of self-* properties is actually not limited, and other than the usual self-CHOP do pop up. And > 2) we might get into silly discussions where some node doesn't implement self-optimisation, and you could then argue that strictly speaking it's not autonomic. I don't think this type of discussion would help us to progress. > > Thoughts? > Michael > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: nmrg [mailto:nmrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Sheng Jiang >> Sent: 23 July 2014 12:18 >> To: Olivier Festor; nmrg@irtf.org >> Cc: <olivier.festor@univ-lorraine.fr> Festor >> Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-01 >> feedback >> >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > nmrg mailing list > nmrg@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg >
- [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definiti… Benoit Claise
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Michael Behringer (mbehring)
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Laurent Ciavaglia
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Arran Cudbard-Bell
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Benoit Claise
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Laurent Ciavaglia
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Olivier Festor
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Sheng Jiang
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Michael Behringer (mbehring)
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Alexander Clemm (alex)
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Alexander Clemm (alex)
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Benoit Claise
- Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-defi… Michael Behringer (mbehring)