Agree, Laurent. Then let’s nail this down in the Intent draft: “Intent is defined per Autonomic Function”. Michael From: Laurent Ciavaglia [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 November 2016 11:04 To: Michael Behringer (mbehring) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF?
Michael, Definitely not designed per ASA. As mentioned at the mic, in draft-peloso (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peloso-anima-autonomic-function), we've proposed format for "intent" at the AF level. Please note, that once "resolved" the AF intent will exist (be translated) in the instances of the AF (the ASAs) as AF instance descriptor. This is ASA-level/specific information. Best regards, Laurent. On 18/11/2016 02:53, 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. Michael _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima -- Laurent Ciavaglia Nokia, Bell Labs +33 160 402 636 route de Villejust - Nozay, France linkedin.com/in/laurent.ciavaglia
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
