Markus, On 02/10/2014 05:27, Markus Stenberg wrote: > 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.
Personal comments on this: 1) One reason for not stating homenet as part of the scope is that we do not want to interfere with the current progress in homenet. Personally I think there is a lot to learn from homenet, but as I just said to Pierre, we are too late to affect homenet's choices. I will be delighted if the results can be applied to homenets in future, of course. 2) I am also a little nervous about the IoT reference in the charter. We haven't yet seen a use case description that would apply to IoT (which has IMHO a much broader scope than home networks, e.g. building services.) I think the initial focus is indeed on enterprise and carrier networks where the OPEX pain is greatest, but we should not artificially limit the applicability either. > > Looking at the milestones, I am very curious about lack of > requirements or architecture work before promoting solutions > and even WGLCing them. There are the existing NMRG documents and there will be an overview document, but we are following quite specific direction from the ADs about this. > Notably, adoption of a solution (discovery+negotiation > protocol) before adoption of use cases seems like putting > cart before the horse. Again, we are following direction from the ADs. > 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. There is a subtle point here. The idea is to produce generic components that do *not* imply specific autonomic algorithms. If we do it correctly, those components will support either a top down or a distributed mechanism or even a blend of the two approaches. So actually the solution choices come later: we don't have to decide in advance between top-down and peer-to-peer. > 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. If we were having this discussion 5 years ago, I would agree. But you homenet guys are ahead of us. > Especially as IoT is just > specialized type of homenet, I assume, As above - I don't think that's right; IoT is much broader. > although it is covered > only by one mention in the whole charter (and the rest does > not seem very IoT oriented). So should we say in the charter that the scope is everything but the initial focus is enterprise and carrier? > > 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. That means we have explained the negotiation idea badly. It is not top-down negotiation like draft-boucadair-network-automation-requirements. It is peer to peer with top-down as a special case. Thanks Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
