On 31/05/18 04:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 01/06/2018 07:31, Michael Richardson wrote:
Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> 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.
I think that you'd like us to change the text to say:
<t hangText="ANI:">The Autonomic Network Infrastructure as
defined by <xref target="I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model" />.
This document details specific requirements for pledges,
proxies and registrars when they are part of an ANI.</t>
is this correct? Or did you want us to retain some other words above?
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
