Is the attached drawing correct? It's supposed to be an Autonomic Function implemented across three Autonomic Nodes X, Y and Z containing a total of four ASAs managing two different technical objectives A and B.
(If anyone wants to fire back a corrected version I have attached the PPT as well as the PDF.) Regards Brian On 12/07/2016 02:45, Laurent Ciavaglia wrote: > Hello, > > There is some text in draft-peloso-anima-autonomic-function-01 > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peloso-anima-autonomic-function-01) > detailing what should be considered when installing, > instantiating and operating AF/ASA. > Please see sections 3+. > > Feedback on the text is most welcome as this will be presented at > IETF96/Berlin. > > Best regards, Laurent. > > > On 11/07/2016 14:55, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> I believe your description, and that of others as to what we "intend", does >> not line up with the definition you quote. >> >> The text says that an ASA "implements an autonomic function." That seems to >> say that I sould expect an autonomic function to >> be implemented by an ASA, thus implying a 1-1 relationship. >> >> yet, your example states an AF of "bootstrapping", but the funcitonality of >> the ASA being a much smaller piece. >> >> Net: No, the words do not clearly state what we intend. >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> On 7/11/16 8:39 AM, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote: >> ... >>>>>> Also, how is the relevance for each ASA known? >>>>> >>>>> My proposal: Intent comes in sections; those sections are >>>>> labelled with the >>>> name of the ASA / autonomic function they belong to. Also here, >>>> there are many ways to do this, it's a simple proposal which could >>>> be optimised in many ways. >>>>> >>>>>> And is that the correct granularity of the section? Maybe the >>>>>> granularity should be individual objectives, or certain groups >>>>>> of objectives? I think this needs more discussion. >>>>> >>>>> On this one I agree!! We should have more discussions on that. >>>>> Your point >>>> from the other mail, that we should try implementing some ASAs >>>> would help understand this better. >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Yes, that misunderstanding keeps popping up all the time. I think >>> RFC7575 is quite clear: >>> >>> Autonomic Function: A feature or function that requires no >>> configuration and can derive all required information through self- >>> knowledge, discovery, or Intent. >>> >>> Autonomic Service Agent: An agent implemented on an autonomic node >>> that implements an autonomic function, either in part (in the case >>> of a distributed function) or whole. >>> >>> Example: There is the "autonomic function" "bootstrapping of new >>> nodes". It consists of 3 different ASAs: The new_device ASA, the >>> proxy ASA and the registrar ASA. >>> >>> How can we make that clearer? (I thought RFC7575 *is* clear). >> ... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Anima mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima >> >
AF-ASA-Obj.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
AF-ASA-Obj.ppt
Description: MS-Powerpoint presentation
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
