On 28/02/2018 05:34, 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.
(a) Undoubtedly we will have changes to make after IETF Last Call, so we can put this on ice until then. (b) Yes, I think the text here and in RFC7575 is fine. Maybe it's the WG charter which is wrong :-). As you know, the point was to avoid any clash with HOMENET. But "traditionally managed" is a better phrase than "professionally managed", I think. Brian > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
