On 1.10.2014, at 16.20, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote: > Based on the previous UCAN BoF, we are considering having an ANIMA WG: > Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach > This is now a proposed charter, under consideration by the IESG. > This is your chance to provide feedback on > http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/anima/charter/ > Note also that a BoF has been requested, just in case. > Since HOMENET was mentioned during the UCAN BoF, I thought of double-checking > with you guys.
TL;DR: Please either add homenet (and solutions already in the WG) to the WG goals, or drop IoT too and just focus on enterprise. Looking at the milestones, I am very curious about lack of requirements or architecture work before promoting solutions and even WGLCing them. Notably, adoption of a solution (discovery+negotiation protocol) before adoption of use cases seems like putting cart before the horse. It is not also clear to me how well the suitability of the solution has been evaluated. For implementation of some autonomic, distributed algorithms, point-to-point negotiation protocol such as the suggested solution is far from optimal. In case of homenet, we moved from hierarchical DHCPv6 PD (point-to-point hierarchy) to a distributed algorithm (draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment*) which was result of over two years of draft updates, academic proving of correctness etc. Also, while dropping homenet from list of target things is _a_ way to solve the conflict that we already have autonomic solution for that particular problem which works (it was mentioned there before in e.g. IETF 90 not-quite-WG-forming BoF), even better would be to have a general solution that _also_ works in a homenet. Especially as IoT is just specialized type of homenet, I assume, although it is covered only by one mention in the whole charter (and the rest does not seem very IoT oriented). Looking at the solutions, from homenet developer / draft writer point of view, I would welcome a general trust bootstrapping framework. I am not convinced by the current solution draft for that (it assumes too many components for a home network case at least). A lot of the other things seem somewhat enterprise-y (control plane with IPsec, own routing protocol and ULAs? Not in IoT device at least, nor probably in constrained homenet router), or just unsuitable, such as the negotiation protocol that does not seem like a good fit for distributed decision making which is usually the key thing in autonomic networking. Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
