[Anima] comments on charter-ietf-anima-00-09
Laurent Ciavaglia <Laurent.Ciavaglia@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 08 October 2014 13:04 UTC
Return-Path: <laurent.ciavaglia@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13DD71A079A for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 06:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.685
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2e1FJjI3qurh for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 06:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA8D61A066C for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 06:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.122]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 0847E8A2BE40F for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 13:04:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s98D44RK022140 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 15:04:06 +0200
Received: from [135.244.228.68] (135.239.27.40) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 15:04:05 +0200
Message-ID: <54353644.9080500@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:04:04 +0200
From: Laurent Ciavaglia <Laurent.Ciavaglia@alcatel-lucent.com>
Organization: Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs France
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: anima <anima@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010800030307060107090709"
X-Originating-IP: [135.239.27.40]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/WRw6a7AxLU4B_9pUWdcDogh6Now
Subject: [Anima] comments on charter-ietf-anima-00-09
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:04:17 -0000
Hi,
Two comments on :
"Definition of a discovery _protocol_ for autonomic _nodes_
Definition of a negotiation _protocol_ for autonomic _functions_"
1) the choice of the term "functionality" instead of "protocol" was
used on purpose as to avoid choosing _a priori_ the (de)composition in
protocol(s). i.e. one _a posteriori_ / informed decision will be how to
"group" the different functionality in one or more protocols (or
extension of existing ones).
2) for consistency, we should use the same term either "nodes" or
"functions". function was initially proposed to be most generic, and
target a finer granularity (cf. section 2 of draft
autonomic-network-definitions). alternative proposals could be use
"functions/nodes", or "agents" (but this term is not defined in the
charter).
Best regards, Laurent.
- [Anima] comments on charter-ietf-anima-00-09 Laurent Ciavaglia