+1, thanks a lot, Pascal. Will only get back after Mar 5 to reply,
some other deadline stuff upfront.
I think the correct term in reality is '"professionally' "managed"' networks.
But kidding aside: resource constrained networks are not necessarily so
autonomic that they do not require 'professional' 'management', that
is just lucky coincidence, so the missing discussion if any would
have to be about constrained devices and the subset of ACP functionality
feasible/useful. I thought i had already some text in the appendix. WIll
check and improve next week.
Cheers
Toerless
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:17:01AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Pascal,
>
> Great review!
>
> > - Section 3; the IOT certainly could use an ACP. It would be
> > useful to scope the feature that is proposed in this document, whether it
> > is compatible of not with constrained environments, whether it needs
> > adaptations, point on Michael's enrollment draft. It would also be useful
> > to indicate whether the ACP works between L3 bridges, IOW whether ACP
> > operates the same (over IP) regardless of the packet forwarding layer in
> > the data plane;
>
> Perhaps this point belongs in draft-ietf-anima-reference-model. ANIMA is
> chartered for "professionally managed" networks, and the reference model
> says: "At a later stage ANIMA may define a scope for constrained nodes with a
> reduced ANI [autonomic infrastructure] and well-defined minimal
> functionality. They are currently out of scope." So while your point is very
> valid, it's been considered out of scope so far.
>
> I'll leave the rest of your excellent comments to the ACP authors.
>
> Thanks
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
--
---
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
