On 18/11/2016 14:53, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
> One question that just came up: Should Intent be designed per ASA or per AF?
>
> My suggestion previously was to segment Intent into sections per Autonomic
> Functions.
>
> Example: Intent for the bootstrap function could be:
> - allow bootstrapping new devices only during maintenance window
>
> For such Intent, action could be taken on the registrar (one ASA of the AF),
> or on the proxy (another ASA of the same AF).
>
> It seems to me an author of an AF might like all ASAs of his AF to know about
> the Intent, because the proxy may also take actions.
Yes, I think so. Again we hit the question of granularity and whether this is
actually
Intent, but a policy like that might be added to Intent-for-BRSKI, and both
registrars
and proxies need to know it.
So I'd expect we will need intent to be in sections that are per-function (and
we will
therefore need a method of guaranteeing that function names are unique). In
fact we get
a more general result if we simply say that intent is divided in sections that
have
unique labels; then it's easy to support intent per-function, per-objective, or
even per-geography if we want.
Brian
>
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
