Hello,
Yes. There's been an assumption, I think, that one "autonomic function" == one
ASA.
We need to be clear if that is an axiom, and we need to think about how ASAs are
named, and if those names need to be registered somehow.
Mmmh... where does this assumption come from...?
I think we've been quite clear the general case is one AF == multiple
ASAs. An AF instantiated by (only) one ASA is a sub-case. Cf. figure 1
of the Reference model draft.
Why would ASAs need a name? That ASA need an ID is ok, but machines
don't care about having stuff referenced with names... and I don't think
human operators will have to deal with ASAs (one of the goals of
ANetworking), or at least not often enough to justify the use of a
naming scheme.
AFs could have names (and would actually need more than just name, e.g.
version number, description of what it does, requires, etc.).
Or am I completely overlooking something?
Best regards, Laurent.
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
