Subject: [Anima] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-anima-00-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 12:52:49 -0700

Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-anima-00-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-anima/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no objection to having a go at this work, although I really worry
that scope needs to be very tightly screwed down and enforced to stop
this going off the rails.

The charter text here is hugely long. Does it need so many words to scope
what the working group is going to do? The general problem space
description reads more like a BoF proposal, and I worry that more words
means more loopholes (or rat holes) for the introduction of work that is
out of the principal focus.

I'm sure that good discussions have led to the list of four areas of self
management. I do worry that these may be three too many to achieve any
progress. Maybe it would be better to walk before we run?

But I won't Block this charter for any of this. Just ask the interest
parties to think hard.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:54:33 +0200

On 01/10/2014 21:52, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> what the working group is going to do?
It seems like the charter text will change anyway. So we'll try to take 
this into consideration
> The general problem space
Reviewing the wording:

    The ANIMA working group will cover the four areas of self-management:
    configuration, protection, healing and optimization, and aims to be equally
    applicable to the complete network (functions) lifecycle (e.g. installation,
    commissioning, operating, etc).

Actually, autonomic networking is composed of "the four areas of 
self-management", but the WG doesn't not cover all four areas.
So I would say: good catch Adrian.

Regards, Benoit
> .

---

From: Laurent Ciavaglia <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:18:32 +0200

Dear Benoit , Adrian, all,

> So I would say: good catch Adrian.

I am not sure to understand... if not the four areas, what is the 
baseline of the WG?
If the scope is one out of the four, then the WG shall be renamed and 
clearly refocused on problems of this specific area.

Considering the 4 areas as the basis provides the key advantages of:
     -attracting a large enough community / community's interests to 
contribute to this group.
     -identify out of a larger problem space the requirements / 
boundaries of the common autonomic networking components, and to ensure 
in return a certain level of re-usability in the multiple and diverse 
use cases/areas.

Best regards, Laurent.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:24:08 +0200

> I am not sure to understand... if not the four areas, what is the 
The baseline of the WG is autonomic networking, for sure.
But do the WG deal with self-healing deliveries, as an example. Not at 
this point.
If I understand correctly, Adrian's point is about "The ANIMA working 
group will _cover four areas_"

Regards, Benoit
> boundaries of the common autonomic networking components, and to 
> ensure in return a certain level of re-usability in the multiple and 
> diverse use cases/areas.
>
> Best regards, Laurent.
>
>

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:18:46 +0100

> If I understand correctly, Adrian's point is about "The
> ANIMA working group will cover four areas"
 
Yeah, that was my point. If the intention is to cover all four areas day one,
then this looks like a very wide scope. i wanted to make sure this was the
intention and that the work load and potential lack of focus has been discussed.
 
A
 
From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 02 October 2014 14:24
To: Laurent Ciavaglia; Adrian Farrel; The IESG
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Anima] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-anima-00-09:
(with COMMENT)

Regards, Benoit

I am not sure to understand... if not the four areas, what is the baseline of
the WG?
The baseline of the WG is autonomic networking, for sure.
But do the WG deal with self-healing deliveries, as an example. Not at this
point.
If I understand correctly, Adrian's point is about "The ANIMA working group will
cover four areas"

Regards, Benoit

If the scope is one out of the four, then the WG shall be renamed and clearly
refocused on problems of this specific area.

Considering the 4 areas as the basis provides the key advantages of:
    -attracting a large enough community / community's interests to contribute
to this group.
    -identify out of a larger problem space the requirements / boundaries of the
common autonomic networking components, and to ensure in return a certain level
of re-usability in the multiple and diverse use cases/areas.

Best regards, Laurent.

---

From: Laurent Ciavaglia <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 18:11:40 +0200

Sorry but this is not clear to me...

What is the issue (or proposed reformulation) of: "The ANIMA working 
group will cover the four areas of self-management: configuration, 
protection, healing and optimization, and aims to be equally applicable 
to the complete network (functions) lifecycle (e.g. installation, 
commissioning, operating, etc)."?

Is it a question of timing/phasing i.e. work first on area x (current 
charter) before addressing area y (rechartering)?
According to you, which are the first area(s) this WG is currently 
focused on?
How are the priorities set?
Is it not the decision of the IETF community to decide which area to 
contribute in the WG?

The very purpose of common AN components is to be re-usable across 
multiple/diverse use cases / across domains.

For the records, one of the proposed use cases (risk aware routing) is a 
self-healing feature; and the use case described in the charter 
"always-on, data plane independent connectivity" looks for me like 
having self-healing inside.

So for sure, there is no self-healing protocol in the charter, but the 
discovery, negotiation... functionalities the WG will develop should 
very well be applicable to self-healing use cases (among many others).

Thanks, best regards, Laurent.

On 02/10/2014 16:18, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Yeah, that was my point. If the intention is to cover all four areas 
> day one, then this looks like a very wide scope. i wanted to make sure 
> this was the intention and that the work load and potential lack of 
> focus has been discussed.
>
> A
>
> *From:*Benoit Claise [mailto:[email-masked]]
> *Sent:* 02 October 2014 14:24
> *To:* Laurent Ciavaglia; Adrian Farrel; The IESG
> *Cc:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Re: [Anima] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on 
> charter-ietf-anima-00-09: (with COMMENT)
>
>         Actually, autonomic networking is composed of "the four areas
>         of self-management", but the WG doesn't not cover all four areas.
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

-- 

Bien cordialement, Best regards,

*Laurent Ciavaglia*

Advanced Internet Research

Bell Labs | Alcatel Lucent

phone: +33 160 402 636

email: [email-masked] 
<mailto:[email-masked]>

linkedin: laurentciavaglia <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/laurentciavaglia/>

address: Route de Villejust | 91620 Nozay | France

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 10:41:58 +1300

Laurent,

I think it's clear that we intend to define basic mechanisms that
will allow all four aspects to be developed as applications of
those mechanisms, but that the charter and the WG will indeed be
tightly limited to developing just a couple of use cases as
test cases for the mechanisms. And I think that must be badly
expressed in the current draft of the charter, or we would not
need this conversation.

Regards
   Brian

On 03/10/2014 05:11, Laurent Ciavaglia wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>