Definitely.
My main point was more about the architecture vs. protocols:
originally, ANIMA was chartered to avoid doing architectures, and it
reflects in the difficulty to even get the reference model document
accepted by our AD (for those who do not remembre). "Create only
documents that result in running code". While that latter statement
should clearly still be the outcome of further ANIMA work, my experience
from the past years is that the structure of the charter 1 documents
made it really difficult (impossible) to distinguish between the
architecture of a solution and the details of the interoperaability
protocols used to implement the architecture. In result, we had problems
what to put into voucher, how to duplicate text in Netonf Zero touch and
BRSKI and i am not even right now on top of all the IoT variations we
may get where there likely will be fever (but some) additions to the
architectural model, but more likely a lot more changes on the protocol
side.
So, i am ot quite sure how to best improve this in the future, but
thats why i bring it up as food for thought.
Cheers
Toerless
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 07:38:25AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Toerless,
>
> > On 17 Jul 2019, at 00:03, Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Not sure yet how to best do that, hopefully something we can discuss @105.
>
> To the general idea??? it may be worth setting some time at the end of the
> ANIMA WG meeting for this, or even in the onboarding/mud side meeting. This
> is an onboarding point??? just likely after an offboarding ;-)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
--
---
t...@cs.fau.de
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
