Jan Lindblad <j...@tail-f.com> writes: > Hi, >> While I agree with Martin, in our systems we have a number of places, where >> the system does create configuration in running, due to >> >> different levels of automation and autonomous algorithms kick-in >> the created config needs to be possible to be further modified by the >> operator >> the created config needs to be referenced from operator created config >> the created config is not always ephemeral, it might need to be part of >> backup/restore > This is only a sampling from "the list of excuses". I have heard many more. > The road to hell is paved with good intentions, however. If we want to build > automation based on sound theory, clearly separating the orders from managers > from a system's own operational view is key, IMO. Reliability, security, > accountability are growing in importance, and they all play in this direction. > > We may not need to standardize rules to outlaw the above; the market > will take care of that. What we need to ensure is that it is possible > to be standards compliant without having to implement design excuses > like these.
I agree. Now that we have NMDA, things like this shouldn't be necessary. Lada > > Best Regards, > /jan > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
