ANIMA WG,
I just uploaded a new version of the reference model,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-03.
Below the change log; I believe to have addressed all open issues.
Feedback please!
Michael on behalf of the co-authors.
--
* Added the state machine, as discussed in the last IETF.
* Re-ordered things a bit: Now the state machine, as well as the
description of the adjacency table (old section 5) are part of section
3, which has become more important, but I think we now have all elements
concerning an autonomic node in one section, which looks a lot better to
me. Also, I dropped the old section 5 "Behavior of an autonomic node",
that never really fit well. So now it looks like this:
3. The Autonomic Network Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. The Adjacency Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. State Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. State 1: Factory Default . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.2. State 2: Enrolled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.3. State 3: In ACP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
* Intent distribution: The previous version of the draft only referred
to intent to be distributed; following our discussions the distribution
protocol may also transport other "information" (which is the term I use
now in the draft), which I have now brought out more explicitly in some
places.
* There was some discussion on whether we should be more explicit in how
information (e.g., Intent) is flooded. I think we settled on GRASP
synchronising which node has which version of "information", and where
to find it (URI). Then another protocol pulls that information block if
needed.
However, looking at the reference draft right now, I think we should NOT
enter this level of detail here; this should be dealt with in
draft-liu-anima-grasp-distribution. I think we're better off if the
reference draft stays on a high level here. In any case, it's formally
out of scope in ANIMA right now.
* Dealing with out-of-scope topics: I think we agreed that we must
include some topics in the draft that are formally out of scope, to
provide the context for certain decisions. So far I think we universally
agree. We went back-and-forth a few times whether to mark topics with
(*) inline, or whether to group them in an appendix. Neither way is
perfect. My personal preference is to leave them inline, in the sections
they belong to, because if we group them in an appendix we lose context.
I think all such topics are clearly marked with a (*) and in each such
section I wrote explicitly "outside scope for now". I also re-ordered
some sections such that the (*) topics are always last in each section
(e.g., I re-ordered 4.6 and 4.7). If anyone has a problem with that,
please shout!
* Made some changes to (old) section 5, "Behaviour of an autonomic node":
** changed the sequence: First, node joins ACP, THEN it starts bootstrap
proxy
** added Registrar discovery as a separate step.
** explained that bootstrap proxy is an ASA (as discussed in the ASA
section)
** condition for the latter is 1) part of ACP, and 2) having discovered
at least one Registrar.
* some editorial changes; changed a "MAY" to a "may".
* Changed "The Proxy ASA" to "The Join Assistant ASA", and "The
Registrar" is now "The Join Registrar".
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
