Lurker question (and a predictable one at that): What does it mean to be "professionally managed"? I am sure we can all think of multiple reasonable definitions, but it seems we need to have an explicit statement of the one we're using to constrain the scope of ANIMA.
More important perhaps (and don't forget the lurker status!), one value of technologies like ANIMA might well be to better manage networks that do not have a sufficient level of professional resources supporting them in the first place...? Avanti, BobN -----Original Message----- From: Anima [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 4:22 PM To: Anima WG <[email protected]> Subject: [Anima] "professionally managed" and the reference model While looking at Pascal's ACP review, I noticed that although ANIMA scope is limited by charter to "professionally managed" networks, we do not mention that scope in draft-ietf-anima-reference-model. It seems like something to be added to the Introduction. Comments? Regards Brian Carpenter _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
