On 21/11/2016 06:36, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Richardson [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: 20 November 2016 07:42
>> To: Michael Behringer (mbehring) <[email protected]>
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [Anima] Intent per ASA or per AF?
>>
>>
>> Michael Behringer (mbehring) <[email protected]> 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
>>
>> I agree that this is a useful policy.
>>
>> I come back to such pseudo-time-based Intents to wonder how they work.
>> We discussed this a year ago... and never, I thought, reached consensus.
>>
>> I think that the answer to that would tell me how Intents should be
>> partitioned.
>
> Not sure I completely understand, and not sure that's what I wanted to say.
> My point was that a policy like above could be implemented on the proxy as
> well as the registrar. Maybe in some cases on both. So, segmenting per
> function seems more useful than by ASA.
This conversation strengthens my conviction that we should leave this as
flexible as possible, because the requirements will change with experience.
In other words, label each segment of Intent - and the label may well be
the name of an autonomic function - but do not make rules about the labels.
That way there is flexibility for the future.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
