Subject: [Anima] comments on charter-ietf-anima-00-11

From: Laurent Ciavaglia <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 15:43:35 +0200

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 to use 
both such as "autonomic functions/nodes", or "agents" (but this term is 
not defined in the charter).

Best regards, Laurent.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 10:19:05 +0200

Hi Laurent,

>     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).
Understood.
I changed it back to "functionality", but I changed "definition" to 
"specification" to make sure people understand there is some sort of 
specs behind this item.
> both such as "autonomic functions/nodes", or "agents" (but this term 
> is not defined in the charter).
Agreed.
Changed to "function"

Thanks and regards, Benoit
>
> Best regards, Laurent.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima