On 01/06/2018 07:31, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 03:07:15PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >> > I would prefer to have the simple definition "ANI == systems that
> support
> >> > both BRSKI and ACP" in the doc itself. Threre is really no single
> authoritative
> >> > normative document for ANI, so it should simply be stated equally in
> BRSKI and
> >> > ACP. Rest of text is fine.
> >>
> >> I'm not getting what you are suggesting.
> >> I think you are saying that we shouldn't point at ACP for the ANI
> term, but
> >> rather define it ourselves?
>
> > Yes.
>
> okay, I've copied text:
>
> ANI: "Autonomic Network Infrastructure". The ANI is the
> infrastructure to enable Autonomic Networks. It includes ACP,
> BRSKI and GRASP. Every Autonomic Network includes the ANI,
> but not every ANI network needs to include autonomic functions
> beyond the ANI (nor intent). An ANI network without further
> autonomic functions can for example support secure zero touch
> bootstrap
> and stable connectivity for SDN networks - see
> [I-D.ietf-anima-stable-connectivity]
>
Wrong answer, IMHO.
draft-ietf-anima-reference-model defines the ANI at some length.
That should be the (informative) reference for basic terminology.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
