Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:19:58AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: >> I find it slightly confusing that we say that Intent is part of the framework, but >> that we don't work on it without a recharter, but I guess the goal is not to >> forget it, but not to go down a rathole.
> Wanted to reassert what i hope is the WG agreement about Intent, and we
> had discussed this since at least IETF102:
> Intent was given to us (ANIMA) from NMRG as part of the initial chater
> scope. We did include it into the reference model, but we failed to find
> enough actionable agreement on what Intent is and what to do about it.
I thought that we make it out of scope so that SUPA would do the work, but
SUPA failed. (I'm reminded by the "POLICY" WG of 20 years ago...)
> We therefore for now would like to punt the next steps of work on Intent
> back to NMRG and hope we can make enough progress there to later bring
> it back into ANIMA.
Fair enough. I don't know if the charter should refer readers to NMRG.
I also wonder if there are any proprietary efforts to define Intent that
could be referenced?
> I had given a more detailed presentation to this effect at the friday
> NMRG workshop at IETF101 in Montreal, but somehow i can not find any
> slides from that friday meeting. Maybe Laurent can comment were that
> NMRG workshop notes are. There where more really good presentations.
Maybe in the proceedings? I guess there is a youtube video too.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
