On 30/10/2014 22:08, Markus Stenberg wrote:
> On 28.10.2014, at 22.13, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 1. scope
>> OLD: The ANIMA working group will initially focus on enterprise, ISP
>> networks and IoT.
>> NEW: The ANIMA working group focuses on professionally-managed networks.
>
> +1. This is what I was trying to get earlier (but apparently just dropping
> IoT did not describe it fully due to potentially managed IoT networks too; I
> am too stuck in my home IoT rut I guess).
>
>> Does it sound about right?
>> 2. Overlap with HOMENET
>> This distinction in point 1 might help regarding the potential overlap of
>> the solution for distributed IPv6 prefix management.
>> Btw, the new charter has been adapted:
>> OLD: A solution for distributed IPv6 prefix management within a network.
>> NEW: the solution for distributed IPv6 prefix management within a
>> large-scale network
>
> I would personally rather drop prefix management. At least, the current
> proposed solution is DHCPv6 PD plus lot of marketing plus one extra thing
> (role) minus tons of existing functionality. I would rather stick the role
> into PD, than reinvent the protocol.
>
> If there is not something more novel there (that is, not hierarchical PD in
> disguise), I do not see the point.
It is specifically not bound to be hierarchical. The idea is that peer devices
can provide resource (IPv6 prefixes) to each other when one of them runs low,
and that is a specific use case for carriers. Perhaps it's badly explained.
It was chosen explicitly as a very simple but real use case. (There is a
more complex case which is sharing IPv4 resources between AFTRs but we
took that out to keep things simple.)
I don't understand what you mean about marketing.
Brian
>> Also, The HOMENET collaboration has been stressed in the charter.
>>
>> 3. Others
>> I believe I took care of the others changes proposed on the mailing. If this
>> is not the case, let me know.
>> At this point in time, please provide concrete change to the charter text if
>> some issues persist.
>> Charter v15 has just been posted, and you can review the detailed changes at
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-anima%2Fwithmilestones-00-14.txt&difftype=--html&submit=Go!&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-anima%2Fwithmilestones-00-15.txt
>
> I think it is mostly fine, although the use of term ‘autonomous’ for
> essentially (on high level) managed devices that perform some low-level
> autonomic functions sounds still strange to me. I guess I could live with it
> though.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Markus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
