Hi, (FYI a direct link to the draft charter is: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/anima/wiki/Recharter2019 )
One in line comment... On 19-Mar-19 14:05, Sheng Jiang wrote: > In lines. > > Sheng > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anima [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson >> > ANIMA will start to define AFs to enable service automation in >> > networks; it will also work on generic aspects of ASA including design >> > guidelines and >> > lifecycle management including coordination and dependency >> management. >> >> I think that this is a good set of goals, and I'd like to see AFs built, but >> I'm not >> seeing them. > > This is in the scope. Whether the WG participants come up with good AFs, we > will see. Actually, we saw some AFs came together with use cases. What we are > not sure is the balance between specific AFs for narrow usage or generic AFs > that can be reused in many scenarios. > >> What I'd ideally like to see is: >> >> 1) some place for enrollment work -- including BRSKI. > > It is already in the proposed work items: BRSKI relevant works, including > proxies, "enrollment", adaptions over various network protocols, variations > of voucher formats, and etc. > >> 2) a way to finish and revise the ANI work. This may need rather some >> kind of lightweight industrial forum to push interoperability testing >> leading to Updates to documents presently in the queue or already >> published. > > We believe this is covered. Maybe the word "Works extending ANI" needs be > revised? Any suggestion? > >> 3) a way to get AFs brought out. Maybe an IRTF RG, maybe something else. > > Generic ASAs that can be reused in multiple scenarios are already in the > scope. We are not sure about the dedicated ASAs. They may come up with > specific use cases. We need to discuss them case by case when we see them. > How to arouse people to work on AFs/ASAs is another topic. It is out of the > discussion of WG charter, I believe. Well, many IETF WGs have attached implementation efforts (QUIC is a current example). I agree that they are not IETF work officially, but it's often the same people - working under open source rules, not IETF rules. That needs to be discussed in a side meeting, perhaps (unfortunately I won't be in Prague, so I can't help with that). I will take the liberty of reminding people that there is already one open source platform for implementing demonstration ASAs and AFs. I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more interest in it. It needs a secure ACP, but nobody has given me one of those yet, so it runs insecure apart from normal firewall protection. https://github.com/becarpenter/graspy (start with the README and graspy.pdf) Brian > Sheng > >> While not properly the business of the IETF, I don't think that (3) can get >> much >> traction until there is a way to bring up a (virtual) ANI on a bunch of VMs >> or cheap >> equipment in research labs. >> Having ANI is like Web 1.0... the real value doesn't come until 2.0. >> >> So one thought is, provided that (1) can be satisfied some other way, is to >> suspend (not shutdown) ANIMA rather than recharter it. I recognize that such >> an action might have negative consequences to how various people are able to >> participate. >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= >> IPv6 IoT consulting =- >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
