Brian: as part of the fixes for Pascals review, i added a section 1.1, applicability & scope that mentions the "professionally managed" and also has one small paragraph at the end re. constrained devices/ networks. I hope this provides qukc/useful scoping of what the ACP does.
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 -- --- t...@cs.fau.de _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima