Hi Toerless, Yes, section 1.1 works for me. Personally I hope that some of what we do here can later become self-deploying in unmanaged networks, but that is out of WG charter at the moment and purely a dream.
Regards Brian On 10/05/2018 18:14, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
