Hello, Does the need to explicitly distinguish ANIMA work from HOMENET work still exist If not, then why not remove/forget about this possibly contentious terminology. (the goal would be to avoid unnecessary difficulties for ANIMA documents publication at IESG review or IETF last call stages).
FWIW, my understanding of "professionally managed" is "managed _BY_ a professional". Here the person or entity being the "professional" is providing a service (paid or free) to manage a given network as part of her job (or contract). In the mission of her job (or contract) the professional is "external" to the user of the network being managed (i.e. act as a first/third party). * note: a homenet can well be very professionally managed in the sense that it follows BCP but it does not mean it is managed by someone for which it is the job to do this (e.g. John Doe, who is a skilled engineer, manage its homenet for himself, or manage homenets for his friends/relatives...) ** note: a homenet can well be completely unmanaged, i.e. relying exclusively on full plug-and-play mechanisms. Best regards, Laurent. -----Original Message----- From: Anima [mailto:anima-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 1:53 AM To: Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> Cc: anima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Anima] "professionally managed" and the reference model in line (all IMHO): On 01/03/2018 04:51, Toerless Eckert wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:40:55AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> (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. > > Interesting aside! > > Is a network with an SDN controller traditionally managed ? If the SDN controller is configured by a NOC or an NMS database managed by the NOC, yes. I think we are talking about configured by a human in the NOC when we say "traditional" or "professional". > If the SDN controller uses the ACP, does this change the result ? No. But if the SDN controller is configured by an ASA, not by a human, it's autonomic. > Long term NMS'ler would say controller/orchestrator are just fancy new > words for mostly the provisioning part of NMS, but: > > Good controllers/orchestrator would also be intent based only that the > rendering of the intent would not necessarily be autonomic. But then > we have never IMHO well described what criteria are required to call a > particular method of intent rendering autonomic. One reason why "intent" is still a buzzword left for future study. > Some for example would make distribution the key criteria while i > would just look at the observable resilience of a function. > > To use a militaristic explanation: When doing PIM-SM, defense > customers asked us what happens when the enemy shoots down the RP. And > then shoot down its replacement. An so on. Now replace RP with SDN controller. > > Aka: resilient = able to automatically restart in one of enough places > to make the solution survive all covered incidents. > > The "ability to shoot down anything" was btw. the original 1st > requirement by DoD against Arpanet, so i would be careful to call > autonomic networks non-traditional (managed). I would not know what > would be more traditional than meeting this expectation for an IP network. Right. That's why the GRASP draft used to contain a riff about how routing algorithms were the original autonomic mechanisms. If you remember, we had to remove that to satisfy the Routing Area people. If ANIMA succeeds, we will have simply extended that original DARPA requirement. Brian > > Cheers > Toerless > >> 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
