As co-author:
+1,
I would also trying to avoid bringing in more text re "professionally managed"
into the ANI docs, but rather stick to technical wordings which (as michael
pointed out) we have. As i said in recent mails, in my memory, this charter
statement ("professionally managed") was primarily an IETF definition to
separate ANIMA from homenet, but its really hard to translate into technical
terms:
IMHO, after we have ANI docs out, a technical comparison could easily be another
document, maybe something nice to work on:
Does a home network need BRSKI ?
"No, Mrs. Jones will always directly touch the devices in a pre-staging
network consisting of a notebook cable and the new device".
"Actually, Mr. Eckert does remotely install devices in other family member
homes,
and especially with a lot of untrusted equipment in the home, BRKI would be
on the top of my list to ask for adoption into home networks..."
Does a home network need GRASP ?
"Well.. Homenet already had enough of fights about what protocols to use for
what purpose."
"IMHO we first need strong use-cases for GRASP that makes it easier to use
GRASP than the whatever ad-hoc protocol pre-exists! DNS-SD via GRASP
could be one such use-case"
"How about we define how to use Babel as a transport and security layer for
GRASP ?"
Does a home network or other constrained networks need ACP ?
"Well... i think there are various degress of variations of ACP to make
it more lightweight. We specifically did focus on high security first,
there is definitely easy options for more lightweight approaches, most
of them just suggested by current ACP draft in appendix".
Cheers
Toerless
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:34:02PM +0100, Michael H. Behringer wrote:
> In principle I'm happy with that, and I agree that it would be a
> good idea. However, I hope we can avoid another WGLC with this
> change? (Sheng?)
>
> Looking...
>
> Actually, the intro has this paragraph, which I think pretty much
> covers this case:
>
> As discussed in [RFC7575], the goal of this work is not to focus
> exclusively on fully autonomic nodes or networks. In reality, most
> networks will run with some autonomic functions, while the rest of
> the network is traditionally managed. This reference model allows
> for this hybrid approach.
>
> Isn't that even a better description than "professionally managed",
> which has itself raised a lot of questions?
>
> My vote for now: We're good! No changes needed.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> On 26/02/18 22:21, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >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
--
---
t...@cs.fau.de
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
