Re: [Anima] Review comments//RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-05 - Respond by January 22nd, 2018

[Michael H. Behringer]

Inline...

On 28/02/18 15:36, Sheng Jiang wrote:

Hi Michael,

Thanks for addressing my review comments. Below in lines for my further 
comments regarding to several points. None of them are major. So, I will start 
my document shepherd based on the current 06 version. It is up to you to do a 
quick update soon or addressing them together with the IESG review comments, 
which I am sure will have.

Regards,

Sheng


-Original Message-
From: Anima [mailto:anima-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael H.
Behringer
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 9:10 PM
To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsh...@huawei.com>; anima@ietf.org
Cc: anima-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] Review comments//RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-
reference-model-05 - Respond by January 22nd, 2018

On 18/01/18 09:59, Sheng Jiang wrote:

Hi, authors of anima-reference-model,

I have reviewed the draft as the document shepherd, see below
comments. Overall, I feel this document is very useful and it is
almost ready for be published. Please properly address my comments
together with other WGLC comments you may receive. Another revised
version of the document is needed to process the document further if
it passed the WGLC.


Hi Sheng,

First of all thanks for the thorough review. I am now finished with
working your comments into the draft. I am just publishing version -06.

This version should address all your comments. I am not aware of any
other outstanding comments, and believe we have addressed all open issues now.

Details below in line.

Michael


General issues:

1. In section 3.1, it says “The Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) is the
summary of all interactions of the Autonomic Networking
Infrastructure with other nodes and services.” I’m a bit confused by this 
statement.
In my understanding, the ACP itself is mostly a “channel”, although
some ANI functions (signaling, aggregated reporting etc.) are
running within the channel, they should be parallel with ACP
function in the architecture view.

At the same time, there are indeed some functions considered as
sub-functions of the ACP, e.g. the addressing and routing, which are
necessary to make the ACP runnable.

So, my questions to the co-authors:

1) Do you see ACP as an individual function as I understood (mostly
a channel), or a summary of a suite of functions running inside the ACP?

2) What functions are sub-functions of ACP, and what are in parallel
with ACP?


There are really two meanings to the term "ACP". This has caused quite
some confusion, and I agree it needs to be nailed once and for all.
Thanks for raising it here.

1) The general term "control plane" refers to the sum of all protocols
that control network behaviour. Like, in a traditional network, routing 
protocols, etc.
Consequently, an "Autonomic Control Plane" is the sum of all protocols
that controls the behaviour of an autonomic network. In
draft-ietf-anima-stable- connectivity we now use the term "Generalized ACP" for 
this abstract concept.

2) In the ANIMA context, we use the term "ACP" also to describe a very
specific implementation of the generic concept of an "Autonomic Control Plane".

I now cleared up the naming in the reference draft. Where we mean the
abstract concept (3.1 for example), I now use "GACP", where we mean
the implementation, I now use "ACP" and refer to the ACP draft.

Specifically, I changed in 3.1 from ACP to GACP. And re-worded section
4.6, which is all about the implementation of the ACP.

[Sheng] My original comment implied two aspects:
1. As you explained, the "General" control plane vs. the "specific" 
implementation (ACP). So, as I understood, the ACP is an instance of GACP. I have no problem on 
this.
2. The specific ACP actually serves as a management channel for the underlay network, in this 
sense, the ACP could be seen as a "management plane" for the underlay network; in other 
words, the ACP is a "Virtual DCN(Data communication network)". Thus, there could be a 
summary of management functions running inside the ACP, and this summary doesn't belong to ACP 
itself. If you agree with it, I think this also needs to be clarified.


Yes, of course I agree with it! :-)  I'm however worried that this will 
confuse readers a lot. I suggest in this document to stick to the 
autonomic aspect of the ACP only. And in section 4.6 we already say "See 
[I-D.ietf-anima-stable-connectivity 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-06#ref-I-D.ietf-anima-stable-connectivity>] 
for uses cases for the ACP." which describes in detail what you're 
saying above. I suggest we leave it with this in the reference model.



2. I’m confused by the whole purpose of Section 3. The first
sub-clause is describing the architecture of an Autonomic Network
Element, while the rest sub-clauses (adjacency table, state machine
etc.) seems more like “implementation 

Re: [Anima] Review comments//RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-05 - Respond by January 22nd, 2018

[Sheng Jiang]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for addressing my review comments. Below in lines for my further 
comments regarding to several points. None of them are major. So, I will start 
my document shepherd based on the current 06 version. It is up to you to do a 
quick update soon or addressing them together with the IESG review comments, 
which I am sure will have.

Regards,

Sheng

> -Original Message-
> From: Anima [mailto:anima-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael H.
> Behringer
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 9:10 PM
> To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsh...@huawei.com>; anima@ietf.org
> Cc: anima-cha...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Anima] Review comments//RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-
> reference-model-05 - Respond by January 22nd, 2018
> 
> On 18/01/18 09:59, Sheng Jiang wrote:
> >
> > Hi, authors of anima-reference-model,
> >
> > I have reviewed the draft as the document shepherd, see below 
> > comments. Overall, I feel this document is very useful and it is 
> > almost ready for be published. Please properly address my comments 
> > together with other WGLC comments you may receive. Another revised 
> > version of the document is needed to process the document further if 
> > it passed the WGLC.
> >
> 
> Hi Sheng,
> 
> First of all thanks for the thorough review. I am now finished with 
> working your comments into the draft. I am just publishing version -06.
> 
> This version should address all your comments. I am not aware of any 
> other outstanding comments, and believe we have addressed all open issues now.
> 
> Details below in line.
> 
> Michael
> 
> > General issues:
> >
> > 1. In section 3.1, it says “The Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) is the 
> > summary of all interactions of the Autonomic Networking 
> > Infrastructure with other nodes and services.” I’m a bit confused by this 
> > statement.
> > In my understanding, the ACP itself is mostly a “channel”, although 
> > some ANI functions (signaling, aggregated reporting etc.) are 
> > running within the channel, they should be parallel with ACP 
> > function in the architecture view.
> >
> > At the same time, there are indeed some functions considered as 
> > sub-functions of the ACP, e.g. the addressing and routing, which are 
> > necessary to make the ACP runnable.
> >
> > So, my questions to the co-authors:
> >
> > 1) Do you see ACP as an individual function as I understood (mostly 
> > a channel), or a summary of a suite of functions running inside the ACP?
> >
> > 2) What functions are sub-functions of ACP, and what are in parallel 
> > with ACP?
> >
> 
> There are really two meanings to the term "ACP". This has caused quite 
> some confusion, and I agree it needs to be nailed once and for all.
> Thanks for raising it here.
> 
> 1) The general term "control plane" refers to the sum of all protocols 
> that control network behaviour. Like, in a traditional network, routing 
> protocols, etc.
> Consequently, an "Autonomic Control Plane" is the sum of all protocols 
> that controls the behaviour of an autonomic network. In 
> draft-ietf-anima-stable- connectivity we now use the term "Generalized ACP" 
> for this abstract concept.
> 
> 2) In the ANIMA context, we use the term "ACP" also to describe a very 
> specific implementation of the generic concept of an "Autonomic Control 
> Plane".
> 
> I now cleared up the naming in the reference draft. Where we mean the 
> abstract concept (3.1 for example), I now use "GACP", where we mean 
> the implementation, I now use "ACP" and refer to the ACP draft.
> 
> Specifically, I changed in 3.1 from ACP to GACP. And re-worded section 
> 4.6, which is all about the implementation of the ACP.

[Sheng] My original comment implied two aspects:
1. As you explained, the "General" control plane vs. the "specific" 
implementation (ACP). So, as I understood, the ACP is an instance of GACP. I 
have no problem on this.
2. The specific ACP actually serves as a management channel for the underlay 
network, in this sense, the ACP could be seen as a "management plane" for the 
underlay network; in other words, the ACP is a "Virtual DCN(Data communication 
network)". Thus, there could be a summary of management functions running 
inside the ACP, and this summary doesn't belong to ACP itself. If you agree 
with it, I think this also needs to be clarified.
 
> > 2. I’m confused by the whole purpose of Section 3. The first 
> > sub-clause is describing the architecture of an Autonomic Network 
> > Element, while the rest sub-clauses (adjacency table, state machine

Re: [Anima] Review comments//RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-05 - Respond by January 22nd, 2018

[Michael H. Behringer]

On 18/01/18 09:59, Sheng Jiang wrote:


Hi, authors of anima-reference-model,

I have reviewed the draft as the document shepherd, see below 
comments. Overall, I feel this document is very useful and it is 
almost ready for be published. Please properly address my comments 
together with other WGLC comments you may receive. Another revised 
version of the document is needed to process the document further if 
it passed the WGLC.




Hi Sheng,

First of all thanks for the thorough review. I am now finished with 
working your comments into the draft. I am just publishing version -06.


This version should address all your comments. I am not aware of any 
other outstanding comments, and believe we have addressed all open 
issues now.


Details below in line.

Michael


General issues:

1. In section 3.1, it says “The Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) is the 
summary of all interactions of the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure 
with other nodes and services.” I’m a bit confused by this statement. 
In my understanding, the ACP itself is mostly a “channel”, although 
some ANI functions (signaling, aggregated reporting etc.) are running 
within the channel, they should be parallel with ACP function in the 
architecture view.


At the same time, there are indeed some functions considered as 
sub-functions of the ACP, e.g. the addressing and routing, which are 
necessary to make the ACP runnable.


So, my questions to the co-authors:

1) Do you see ACP as an individual function as I understood (mostly a 
channel), or a summary of a suite of functions running inside the ACP?


2) What functions are sub-functions of ACP, and what are in parallel 
with ACP?




There are really two meanings to the term "ACP". This has caused quite 
some confusion, and I agree it needs to be nailed once and for all. 
Thanks for raising it here.


1) The general term "control plane" refers to the sum of all protocols 
that control network behaviour. Like, in a traditional network, routing 
protocols, etc. Consequently, an "Autonomic Control Plane" is the sum of 
all protocols that controls the behaviour of an autonomic network. In 
draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity we now use the term "Generalized 
ACP" for this abstract concept.


2) In the ANIMA context, we use the term "ACP" also to describe a very 
specific implementation of the generic concept of an "Autonomic Control 
Plane".


I now cleared up the naming in the reference draft. Where we mean the 
abstract concept (3.1 for example), I now use "GACP", where we mean the 
implementation, I now use "ACP" and refer to the ACP draft.


Specifically, I changed in 3.1 from ACP to GACP. And re-worded section 
4.6, which is all about the implementation of the ACP.


2. I’m confused by the whole purpose of Section 3. The first 
sub-clause is describing the architecture of an Autonomic Network 
Element, while the rest sub-clauses (adjacency table, state machine 
etc.) seems more like “implementation considerations” or “procedures”. 
I think both are useful content, but they are in two different 
dimensions, maybe separate them into different sections?




Well, the section is about the network element. I find it quite logic 
that you first discuss the architecture of the element, then how it 
behaves in a network. However, I added an explanatory intro at the 
beginning of that section to make it clearer. Thanks for pointing out 
that this wasn't clear!


3. Some texts (e.g. paragraph 4 of Section 1) are directly bind to the 
WG’s charter, I’m not sure it is a good approach that an RFC 
normatively refer the WG charter which is dynamically changed along 
with the work going on in the WG. Maybe just simply re-phrase the 
“chartered work” as “Phase 1/near term work”, and “non-chartered” as 
“Phase 2 long-term”?




Agree that needs to be fixed. Did some editorial changes for that. The 
sections with an (*) now start with a sentence like this:
    ... is not covered in the current implementation specifications. 
This section is for informational purposes, for following phases of 
standardization. 


As part of that fix, I also re-worded the abstract. It now reads:

This document describes a reference model for Autonomic Networking. It 
defines the behaviour of an autonomic node, how the various elements in 
an autonomic context work together, and how autonomic services can use 
the infrastructure.


Now, the word "charter" is no longer in the text at all.

Comments?

4. The whole Section 7 seems too theoretical and abstract. The 
described concepts are valuable, I’d suggest to have more texts 
mapping these concepts into the ANI/AN.




I made the changes described above, to point out very explicitly that 
these sections are essentially for future study. I would prefer NOT to 
do any more editing beyond that. That should be done in a subsequent 
document, I think.



Specific comments:

Section 1 Introduction

- Paragraph 3 claims “This reference model allows for this hybrid 
approach.” I 

Re: [Anima] Review comments//RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-05 - Respond by January 22nd, 2018

[Ciavaglia, Laurent (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)]

Hello,

We are currently 8 "co-authors" for this draft.
My preferences, in priority order, are:
1) Michael as Editor, all other authors listed as authors, no 
contributors.
2) Michael as Editor, all other authors listed as contributors.

Given how this document originated and has developed over time, this would 
reflect, from my viewpoint, a "fair representation".

We may discuss our approach for representation of contributors versus RFC 
editor guidelines.
I think it can be important for the "external readership" that the diversity of 
people that took part in this document is visible, although I understand (and 
fully support) that IETF is not affiliation-driven. Nevertheless, showing 
industry and academia mix is good, and also several vendors co-signing. But 
this may not be our only driver for deciding how to list authors.

Side question: how are contributors associated with an RFC in the datatracker? 
I mean if I search on the datatracker with someone's name, will the RFC where 
he has been contributors appear?

Thanks, Laurent.

-Original Message-
From: Anima [mailto:anima-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 8:16 PM
To: Michael H. Behringer <michael.h.behrin...@gmail.com>; anima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] Review comments//RE: WGLC on 
draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-05 - Respond by January 22nd, 2018

On 30/01/2018 07:58, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
> On 29/01/2018 22:03, Michael H. Behringer wrote:
>> OK, the time for the last call is over. I'll produce a -06 version, 
>> working through the following issues:
>>
>> - Sheng's review from 18 Jan (Thanks Sheng)
>> - Michael's response to Sheng's mail.
>> - the author issue. I think I'll follow Brian's suggestion, listing 
>> me as editor and all other co-authors under contributors. At least I see no 
>> better way...

On looking at that again, please consider that what I actually wrote was:

>> To answer to Brian comments on co-authors: if we have one or more Editors, 
>> should all other "authors" be listed as contributors?
> 
> That is the option suggested by the RFC Editor site, and Michael has been the 
> editor all along.
> Personally I would be quite happy to be listed as a contributor.

I think it's perfectly fine to list one or two editors, then three or four 
authors of substantial text, to a maximum of 5, and then list the rest as 
contributors. If you really can't cut the list at 5, we'd need to justify it to 
the AD.

   Brian

___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Re: [Anima] Review comments//RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-05 - Respond by January 22nd, 2018

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 30/01/2018 07:58, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
> On 29/01/2018 22:03, Michael H. Behringer wrote:
>> OK, the time for the last call is over. I'll produce a -06 version, working 
>> through the following issues:
>>
>> - Sheng's review from 18 Jan (Thanks Sheng)
>> - Michael's response to Sheng's mail.
>> - the author issue. I think I'll follow Brian's suggestion, listing me as 
>> editor 
>> and all other co-authors under contributors. At least I see no better way...

On looking at that again, please consider that what I actually wrote was:

>> To answer to Brian comments on co-authors: if we have one or more Editors, 
>> should all other "authors" be listed as contributors?
> 
> That is the option suggested by the RFC Editor site, and Michael has been the 
> editor all along.
> Personally I would be quite happy to be listed as a contributor.

I think it's perfectly fine to list one or two editors, then three or four 
authors of
substantial text, to a maximum of 5, and then list the rest as contributors. If 
you
really can't cut the list at 5, we'd need to justify it to the AD.

   Brian

___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Re: [Anima] Review comments//RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-05 - Respond by January 22nd, 2018

[Jéferson Campos Nobre]

Dear All.
It seems that we have the same "author information" as RFC 8321. I had
understood reading a previous email that this was not possible.
Thus, I suggest to maintain our current configuration (Michael as Editor
and everybody else as authors) and wait for the IESG review.
Best.
Jéferson

Em ter, 30 de jan de 2018 às 22:29, Toerless Eckert 
escreveu:

> Brian:
>
> The commits do not show all contributions to text.
> I often provided text in email to michael to merge in the past
> when i didn't want to bother about github.  But i am not insisting
> on editor status, but as indicated only author status, and
> for that the question of direct editing on github is irrelevant.
>
> I suggest we move everyone who explicitly wants to be
> listed as contributor into that section, otherwise we keep
> the list of authors (including Michael as only
> editor) as it is right now and we will see what happens during
> IESG review.
>
> There are also new RFCs coming out with 8 authors, eg: rfc8321.
>
> Cheers
> Toerless
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:24:54AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > On 30/01/2018 09:00, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > > If its ok. with the other contributors,
> > > i would appreciate if i could be listed as well as an editor.
> >
> > It's always a judgment call. Who's done most of the editing?
> > Certainly Michael Behringer.
> > (See https://github.com/mbehring/ANIMA-Reference-Model/commits/master)
> >
> > My view of this tricky topic:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-whats-an-author
> >
> >Brian
>
> ___
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Re: [Anima] Review comments//RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-05 - Respond by January 22nd, 2018

[Toerless Eckert]

Brian:

The commits do not show all contributions to text.
I often provided text in email to michael to merge in the past
when i didn't want to bother about github.  But i am not insisting
on editor status, but as indicated only author status, and
for that the question of direct editing on github is irrelevant.

I suggest we move everyone who explicitly wants to be
listed as contributor into that section, otherwise we keep
the list of authors (including Michael as only
editor) as it is right now and we will see what happens during
IESG review.

There are also new RFCs coming out with 8 authors, eg: rfc8321. 

Cheers
Toerless

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:24:54AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 30/01/2018 09:00, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > If its ok. with the other contributors,
> > i would appreciate if i could be listed as well as an editor.
> 
> It's always a judgment call. Who's done most of the editing?
> Certainly Michael Behringer.
> (See https://github.com/mbehring/ANIMA-Reference-Model/commits/master)
> 
> My view of this tricky topic:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-whats-an-author
> 
>Brian

___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Re: [Anima] Review comments//RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-05 - Respond by January 22nd, 2018

[Toerless Eckert]

If its ok. with the other contributors,
i would appreciate if i could be listed as well as an editor.

Thank you
Toerless

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:03:07AM +0100, Michael H. Behringer wrote:
> 
>   
> 
>   
>   
> OK, the time for the last call is over.
>   I'll produce a -06 version, working through the following issues:
>   
>   
>   - Sheng's review from 18 Jan (Thanks Sheng)
>   - Michael's response to Sheng's mail.
>   - the author issue. I think I'll follow Brian's suggestion,
>   listing me as editor and all other co-authors under contributors.
>   At least I see no better way...
>   
>   I think those are all the open comments I saw. Did I miss
>   anything? 
>   
>   Michael
>   
>   
>   On 18/01/18 19:34, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
>cite="mid:12959.1516300...@obiwan.sandelman.ca">
>   
> Sheng Jiang  href="mailto:jiangsh...@huawei.com;>jiangsh...@huawei.com wrote:
>  Hi, authors of anima-reference-model,
> 
> {contributor speaking}
> 
>  General issues:
> 
>  1. In section 3.1, it says "The Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) is the
>  summary of all interactions of the Autonomic Networking 
> Infrastructure
>  with other nodes and services.
> 
>  In my understanding, the ACP itself is mostly a "channel", although
>  some ANI functions (signaling, aggregated reporting etc.) are running
>  within the channel, they should be parallel with ACP function in the
>  architecture view.
> 
> I concur with you, I'm also confused by the word "summary"
> While we think of the ACP as the channel on which control functions occur, I
> can also see that more generically (at the Dilbert's boss' level), the ACP is
> the channel + all the interactions.  Perhaps we need a new term.
> 
>  1) Do you see ACP as an individual function as I understood (mostly a
>  channel), or a summary of a suite of functions running inside the 
> ACP?
> 
> I also think it's worth thinking of the ACP as being a very special ASA that
> creates the secure channel.  Maybe that's too recursive for some people, but
> I think that doing so will encourage us to design the right management
> functions for the ACP itself.
> 
>  2) What functions are sub-functions of ACP, and what are in parallel
>  with ACP?
> 
> That's a good question.
> (/me looks distantly and tries to change the subject :-)
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson  href="mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca;>mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, 
> Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
>   
>   
>   ___
> Anima mailing list
>  href="mailto:Anima@ietf.org;>Anima@ietf.org
>  href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima;>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 

> ___
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima


-- 
---
t...@cs.fau.de

___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima