I still prefer the definition "virtual out of band".
An "overlay" (secure or not) depends on correct configuration of the
underlay. The ACP does NOT depend on configuration in the underlay, that
is what makes it special.
I haven't seen the definition "virtual out of band" anywhere else, and
it is the most precise way to describe it.
Michael
On 30/06/2020 00:06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Say "secure overlay" to emphasise the point, but yes.
The draft I submitted yesterday "describes a simple method of forming an ACP
immediately above the transport layer" which is indeed precisely a secure overlay.
Regards
Brian
On 30-Jun-20 00:45, William Atwood wrote:
Is "overlay" the right word?
I agree that it is physically in-band, and virtually out-of-band. Isn't
that the definition of "overlay"?
Bill
On 2020-06-28 11:02 p.m., Michael Richardson wrote:
Attention This email originates from outside the concordia.ca domain. //
Ce courriel provient de l'exterieur du domaine de concordia.ca
On 2020-06-23 10:31 p.m., internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-25
yes, I read the diffs :-)
- This document describes a modular design for a self-forming, self-
- managing and self-protecting ACP, which is a virtual in-band network
- designed to be as independent as possible of configuration,
+ This document describes a modular design for a self-forming, self-
+ managing and self-protecting ACP, which is a virtual out-of-band
+ network designed to be as independent as possible of configuration,
This change from being a virtual in-band network to a virtual
out-of-band network must have been in response to some comments... It
seems a big change in some ways. I guess it makes this text consistent
with the abstract which has said virtual out-of-band for awhile now.
But, I do have to wonder if we are creating confusion by claiming that
this is an out-of-band mechanism, even though it's really an in-band
mechanism. It's just virtually-out.
I actually do want to start a bike-shed issue here?
Are we describing ourself wrong? Maybe there is some portmanteau that
would be more accurate? I think that the above sentence is essentially
the elevator pitch for all of ANIMA.
There is also a bunch of other text that has been added to the
Introduction, which I think confuses more than it enlightens.
Or at least needs a better copy-edit.
A number of other new sections (9.4..) need a copy-edit to fix some
missing words. I will try to help Toerless with that via github.
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
