Hi, Am 30.06.20 um 08:27 schrieb Michael H. Behringer: > I still prefer the definition "virtual out of band".
Me, too. Especially, if one reads RFC8368 it clearly makes the point that the DCN/OAM networks are normally out-of-band, whereas the GACP is realized as _in-band_ solution. So GACP and ACP are "virtually out-of-band". I think that the editorial change Michael Richardson referred to just fixed that, because "virtually in-band" would not be correct. An overlay is a very generic concept (e.g., IP is an overlay on top of layer 2 networks) and you can stack them on top of each other nearly infinitely. So overlays are nearly everywhere and I think it's also clear that ACP is a establishing a control overlay. > 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. Regards Roland > 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., [email protected] 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
