Subject: Re: [Anima] FW: New Version Notification for draft-behringer-anima-reference-model-00.txt

From: "Jonathan Hansford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:14:18 -0000

Hi,

I know you are looking for high level comments, but I'm just getting my head
round the goals of anima and have some low level editorial comments. Hope
you don't mind:

*         Section 2, MASA: 

o   Is MASA an acronym? I assume the ASA stands for Autonomic Service Agent,
but I could be wrong. 

o   s/The MASA is service/The MASA is a service

*         Section 3: I just don't understand the 2nd sentence. Is it trying
to say that section 2 describes the "boxes"? If so, wouldn't it be better to
say 'Section 2, The Network View, describes the "boxes".'? Or are you trying
to say section 3 describes the boxes identified in section 2? Is the intent
to have a diagram in section 2 that has boxes, lines and arrows (see section
7)?

*         Section 3.1: 

o   This states there are two levels inside an autonomic node but then only
appears to mention one: 'the level of autonomic service agents'. Is the
other level the autonomic networking infrastructure? If so, perhaps it could
say 'Fundamentally, there are two levels inside an autonomic node: that of
the autonomic service agents and that of the autonomic networking
infrastructure, with the former using the functions of the latter.'

o   Though "Intent" is capitalised in this section, it isn't anywhere else
(figure 1 and section 7.3). I presume in each case this is a reference to
Intent as defined in draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions, in which
case drawing the definition through and capitalising throughout might be a
good idea.

*         Section 7: 

o   Again, a confusing reference to section 2. 

o   Do you mean the "summary" of autonomic interactions forms the ACP?
Summary doesn't feel like the right word. Might "totality" be better?

*         Section 7.1: 

o   You identify information as being provided through configuration or
northbound interfaces and indicate autonomic functions should only minimally
rely on the interfaces. Does that imply a greater reliance on configuration,
or should it minimally rely on both configuration and the interfaces? 

o   s/neigbhour/neighbour

*         Section 9.1: s/in theory by attempted/in theory be attempted

Jonathan

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Anima [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Michael

> Behringer (mbehring)

> Sent: 17 October 2014 13:32

> To: [email-masked]

> Subject: [Anima] FW: New Version Notification for draft-behringer-anima-

> reference-model-00.txt

> Here the first version of the reference draft. The sections need a lot
more

> work, but the structure should be a good starting point. Before diving
into

> the details (where we'll have no doubt lots of detailed comments), I'd
like to

> ask specifically about high level comments regarding structure, what is

> missing, etc.

> Michael

> > -----Original Message-----

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

> > Sent: 17 October 2014 14:30

> > To: Michael Behringer (mbehring); Brian E. Carpenter; Michael

> > Behringer (mbehring); Toerless Eckert (eckert); Brian Carpenter;

> > Toerless Eckert

> > (eckert)

> > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-behringer-anima-reference-

> > model-00.txt

> > A new version of I-D, draft-behringer-anima-reference-model-00.txt

> > has been successfully submitted by Michael H. Behringer and posted to

> > the IETF repository.

> > Name:                           draft-behringer-anima-reference-model

> > Revision:      00

> > Title:                               A Reference Model for Autonomic
Networking

> > Document date:        2014-10-17

> > Group:                          Individual Submission

> > Pages:                           9

> > URL:
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-behringer-anima->
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-behringer-anima-

> > reference-model-00.txt

> > Status:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-behringer-anima->
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-behringer-anima-

> > reference-model/

> > Htmlized:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-behringer-anima-reference->
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-behringer-anima-reference-

> > model-00

> > Abstract:

> >    This document describes a reference model for Autonomic Networking.

> >    The goal is to define how the various elements in an autonomic

> >    context work together, to describe their interfaces and relations.

> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of

> > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
tools.ietf.org.

> > The IETF Secretariat

> _______________________________________________

> Anima mailing list

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

>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

---

From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:05:47 +0000

Jonathan,

Thanks a lot for your review. I'll incorporate your comments into the next version.

Michael

From: Jonathan Hansford [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 08 December 2014 11:14
To: Michael Behringer (mbehring); [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Anima] FW: New Version Notification for draft-behringer-anima-reference-model-00.txt

Hi,

I know you are looking for high level comments, but I'm just getting my head round the goals of anima and have some low level editorial comments. Hope you don't mind:

*         Section 2, MASA:

o   Is MASA an acronym? I assume the ASA stands for Autonomic Service Agent, but I could be wrong.

*         Section 3: I just don't understand the 2nd sentence. Is it trying to say that section 2 describes the "boxes"? If so, wouldn't it be better to say 'Section 2, The Network View, describes the "boxes".'? Or are you trying to say section 3 describes the boxes identified in section 2? Is the intent to have a diagram in section 2 that has boxes, lines and arrows (see section 7)?

*         Section 3.1:

o   This states there are two levels inside an autonomic node but then only appears to mention one: 'the level of autonomic service agents'. Is the other level the autonomic networking infrastructure? If so, perhaps it could say 'Fundamentally, there are two levels inside an autonomic node: that of the autonomic service agents and that of the autonomic networking infrastructure, with the former using the functions of the latter.'

o   Though "Intent" is capitalised in this section, it isn't anywhere else (figure 1 and section 7.3). I presume in each case this is a reference to Intent as defined in draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions, in which case drawing the definition through and capitalising throughout might be a good idea.

*         Section 7:

o   Do you mean the "summary" of autonomic interactions forms the ACP? Summary doesn't feel like the right word. Might "totality" be better?

*         Section 7.1:

o   You identify information as being provided through configuration or northbound interfaces and indicate autonomic functions should only minimally rely on the interfaces. Does that imply a greater reliance on configuration, or should it minimally rely on both configuration and the interfaces?

o   s/neigbhour/neighbour

Jonathan

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

> Here the first version of the reference draft. The sections need a lot more

> work, but the structure should be a good starting point. Before diving into

> the details (where we'll have no doubt lots of detailed comments), I'd like to

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

> > Title:                               A Reference Model for Autonomic Networking

> > URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-behringer-anima-

> > Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-behringer-anima-

> > Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-behringer-anima-reference-

> > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

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