To put it bluntly, we know how to distribute Intent in an ANIMA network (GRASP flooding if it's small, GRASP bulk transfer if it's big). We can even guess that it's likely to look exactly like JSON, which is trivial to represent in GRASP/CBOR. But we have no idea what it actually *is*.
That indeed seems to be a research problem. Regards Brian On 2019-02-21 02:57, Toerless Eckert 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > I have appended the one i gave to this email. > > Cheers > Toerless > > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
