[Anima] ANIMA status

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 11 September 2014 10:38 UTC

Message-ID: <54117B81.5030404@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:37:53 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: anima@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010207060501070000080206"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/Ixpivn4eS2ak_GlqL1gA0-UQn-U
Cc: Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Subject: [Anima] ANIMA status
Precedence: list

Dear all,

Sorry for the delay in providing guidance. Back to normal operation mode 
(from vacation), I'll be more responsive from now on.
I've been reviewing the entire email archive, and Joel & I discussed the 
ANIMA status yesterday, based on the charter v8.

A few observations, to start with:
1. Autonomic Networking could be a huge explanatory field.
2. From the BoF, we heard (among other points):
     There is interest but focus ... focus ... focus on things that 
could be done quickly
3. The IESG has also been realizing that the process of problem 
statement/use cases/requirements/architecture/protocol takes way too 
long for the industry.
4. If a great architecture document to rule all autonomic functions 
would have been easy, it would been done already. In NMRG for example, 
which had plenty of time to think about it! So an architecture as a 
starting point is not the right approach.
5. A WG can always be re-chartered in future phases

These are the reasons why Joel and I asked the BoF chairs to lead a 
charter discussion, focusing on only 2 use cases.
In the mean time, the charter moved in the direction of developing 
reusable infrastructure components for distributed autonomic networking 
functions plus 2 uses case to demonstrate the usage of those 
infrastructure components. Even better.

Regarding the "architecture" (see point 4 above), we like the phrasing of:

    It is essential that these components and solutions fit together as
    an integrated whole.
    For this reason, an overview document will be developed in parallel
    with the individual
    specifications.


Coming back to the number of use cases and the sentence "A second simple 
example may be added by agreement with the Area Director", we believe 
that the second use case is in the charter already, but somehow hidden. 
We read that "Autonomic Control Plane" and/or "bootstrap a trust 
infrastructure" (not sure about the second one though) are at the same 
time reusable component and a use case. Can you please describe your use 
case in a bullet point, next to "Definition of solution for IPv6 prefix 
management within a network"
Also, wrt "Definition of solution for IPv6 prefix management within a 
network", can you please describe the use case some more. This is a 
little bit too high level.

Looking at the charter v9 now.
Regarding the starting points mentioning the draft names, I actually 
believe that pointing to existing work is a plus, to see some 
description behind a single bullet point. Let's imagine that you read 
"Definition of a solution for a separated Autonomic Control Plane" for 
the first time (this is what will happen when/if this charter is 
proposed for last-call), I'm sure that would lead to many questions or 
potential wrong assumptions.
Note, however, that mentioning starting points doesn't imply that we ask 
you to adopt those document as WG items now.

One final edit. From the email discussion, I read that one of the AN 
goal is OPEX reduction. That's maybe an obvious but a key message to 
mention in the charter. In the problem statement paragraph, this could 
introduce in the last sentence.

Regards, Benoit (OPS AD)

[Anima] ANIMA status Benoit Claise
Re: [Anima] ANIMA status Laurent Ciavaglia
Re: [Anima] ANIMA status Benoit Claise
Re: [Anima] ANIMA status Laurent Ciavaglia