On 27/02/2018 11:14, Natale, Bob wrote: > 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.
Yes, we probably need to add a few words. The discussion in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7575#section-3.2 applies, I think, even though it doesn't use the word "professional". The idea is that there is a NOC, there are skilled human operators, and we have to co-exist with traditional management tools. > 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...? Oh, I think we agree on that as the long-term goal. But we were specifically chartered to avoid clashing with the HOMENET WG, where clearly pure plug-and-play is the goal. Brian > > Avanti, > BobN > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anima [mailto:anima-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 4:22 PM > To: Anima WG <anima@ietf.org> > 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 > Anima@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
