That seems OK to me. There are some aspects that we need to discuss over in Anima in due course.
Brian On 09/07/2015 01:53, Pierre Pfister wrote: > Thank you for this proposal. > > In the same spirit (but reducing the amount of changes), what about > « and can therefore be used in fully autonomic as well as configured networks > » ? > > I think « configured » has a smaller scope than « professionally managed > network ». > > - Pierre > > >> Le 7 juil. 2015 à 23:54, Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazip...@ericsson.com> >> a écrit : >> >> Hi, >> Thanks for including me. Adding back gen-art list to this thread. I am ok >> with Brian's suggested text. >> >> Best, >> Meral >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 2:25 PM >> To: Pierre Pfister >> Cc: IESG; homenet@ietf.org; Meral Shirazipour >> Subject: Re: [homenet] Objection to late change in >> draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment >> >> Pierre, >> >> Thanks for the prompt reply. I am not too worried about the process issue, >> and I do understand why that whole paragraph was added (I've added Meral in >> cc). >> >> Your explanation is fine but the phrase "and can therefore be used in fully >> autonomic as well as professionally managed networks" still makes some big >> assumptions. How about "and can therefore be used more widely than in >> unmanaged home networks"? >> >>> I will be in Prague as well and would be happy to discuss whether PA could >>> be useful to Anima. >> >> I can easily imagine an autonomic service agent (in Anima terminology) using >> this algorithm (quite independent from whether it uses DNCP). >> >> Regards >> Brian >> >> On 08/07/2015 08:38, Pierre Pfister wrote: >>> Hello Brian, >>> >>> This change was introduced after the Gen-ART review from Meral Shirazipour, >>> I quote: >>> "I found the draft a bit hard to follow as the incentive was not clear at >>> first. >>> A few sentences in abstract or introduction on 'why' we need this >>> algorithm and what would the 'alternatives' be would be useful. Right now >>> it only says 'what' the algorithm does." >>> >>> This whole paragraph was therefore added: >>> This document specifies a distributed algorithm for automatic prefix >>> assignment. The algorithm provides a generic alternative to >>> centralized (human or software based) approaches for network prefixes >>> and addresses assignment. Although it does not require to be >>> configured to operate properly, it supports custom configuration by >>> means of variable priority assignments, and can therefore be used in >>> fully autonomic as well as professionally managed networks. >>> >>> Its purpose is to clarify the goal of the algorithm in a short sentence. >>> >>> Digging back into my mails, I realize that the exchange I had about this >>> update with Meral was private. >>> My mistake, i thought the mailing list was cc’d to the discussion. >>> Apologies for that. >>> Too bad we did not settled this situation earlier, but anyway, I am glad we >>> can discuss the change now. >>> >>> Still digging, I see you invited the Anima mailing list to discuss >>> that change as well. Feedback from Anima is very welcome. I mean, not >>> about the scopyness or not of a sentence, but rather on the value of the >>> algorithm for Anima. I see there were no reactions though. >>> >>> Now, concerning the correctness of this sentence. I think it can be proven >>> this way: >>> >>> 1. Professionally managed networks are configured by the mean of human >>> configuration or by orchestrators. >>> 2. The prefix assignment algorithm can be configured with preferred >>> prefixes either by humans, or by orchestrators. >>> Therefore: You can use the algorithm to configure a professionally managed >>> network. >>> >>> Example 1: >>> The prefix assignment algorithm can be configured with static prefixes. >>> Static and automatic assignments can even be done depending on the link or >>> the delegated prefix. >>> For example, an enterprise could want part of the network to be >>> numbered statically, and another part of the network to be numbered >>> automatically. >>> This is perfectly possible by configuring some links with preferred >>> assignment with a greater priority than auto-assigned prefixes. >>> >>> Example 2: >>> Now, about your example of managed network with geographical constraints. >>> Nodes executing the prefix assignment are allowed to *not* make assignments >>> from a given delegated prefix. >>> Which means if you have two areas (A and B), and two delegated prefixes (X >>> and Y), nodes in A can be configured to only assign prefixes within X, and >>> nodes in B configured to only assign prefixes from Y. >>> >>> >>> The prefix assignment algorithm is a network management tool enabling >>> auto-configuration *where you want it to happen*. >>> It does not mandate auto-configuration (it does when used by HNCP, but that >>> is only one possible use of the prefix assignment algorithm). >>> The document mostly explains: >>> - The main detailed specification of the algorithm. >>> - The rules that you MUST respect if you want the algorithm to work. >>> >>> And the thing is that about everything that does not create prefix >>> collision is, in the end, authorized. >>> You could put anything as a configuration tool on top of PA, from a >>> netconf/Yang orchestrator to the usual linux ‘ip addr’ utility, or even >>> what the Anima working group could end-up specifying. >>> >>> I hope this helps with your concern about the correctness of this sentence. >>> >>> I will be in Prague as well and would be happy to discuss whether PA could >>> be useful to Anima. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> - Pierre >>> >>> >>>> Le 7 juil. 2015 à 21:45, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> a >>>> écrit : >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Sorry to be so late with this but I had some personal distractions >>>> recently. >>>> >>>> I am very surprised by a change that was made to this draft after >>>> IETF Last Call and with no discussion, as far as I am aware, on the >>>> WG list. It is this additional sentence in the first paragraph: >>>> >>>> "Although it does not require to be >>>> configured to operate properly, it supports custom configuration by >>>> means of variable priority assignments, and can therefore be used in >>>> fully autonomic as well as professionally managed networks." >>>> >>>> Firstly, this is a substantive change so I believe it should have >>>> been discussed by the WG. >>>> >>>> Secondly, the second half of the sentence seems completely >>>> unjustified, and is way outside the Homenet context anyway. I believe >>>> that the range of requirements for autonomic and/or professionally >>>> managed networks is far too great to assert that "variable priority >>>> assignments" meet the needs; much more general policy intent might be >>>> needed in autonomic networks, for example, and the work on this topic >>>> is only just starting in Anima. As a specific example, an >>>> international enterprise network might have geographical requirements for >>>> prefix assignmnent. >>>> >>>> Quite apart from the process issue, I believe that the second half of >>>> the added sentence is wrong and must be deleted. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Brian Carpenter >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> homenet mailing list >>>> homenet@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
