On 20/06/2018 09:50, Toerless Eckert wrote: > Brian, Michael: For the purpose of BRSKI the only relevant aspect of the > ANI is that it is assumed to be a system that support BRSKI and ACP, > and then the document starts to define a bunch of requirements against > BRSKI, which instead of saying ANI could equally say "BRSKI devices that > also support ACP". So BRSKi really does not need to try to refer to a > complete definition of ANI or attempt one by itself, but rather clarify > the relationship to ANI that is used in the BRSKI document. > > To maintain the independence of BRSKI from unnecessary normative > references, maybe something like the following:
I don't really care, but in any case the reference model will always be a "background reading" sort of reference, i.e. Informative. Brian > > <t hangText="ANI:">The Autonomic Network Infrastructure consists > of devices supporting both BRSKI and <xref > target="I.D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane"> (ACP). > In ANI devices, BRSKI relies ACP to connect BRSKI Registrar and > BRSKI Proxies.</t> > > Not sure what value a reference to the reference model would have here in > this terminology. > > Cheers > Toerless > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 08:27:04AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 20/06/2018 03:38, Michael Richardson wrote: >>> On 31/05/18 04:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> On 01/06/2018 07:31, Michael Richardson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote: >>>>> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 03:07:15PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: >>>>> >> > I would prefer to have the simple definition "ANI == systems >>>>> that support >>>>> >> > both BRSKI and ACP" in the doc itself. Threre is really no >>>>> single authoritative >>>>> >> > normative document for ANI, so it should simply be stated >>>>> equally in BRSKI and >>>>> >> > ACP. Rest of text is fine. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I'm not getting what you are suggesting. >>>>> >> I think you are saying that we shouldn't point at ACP for the ANI >>>>> term, but >>>>> >> rather define it ourselves? >>>>> >>>>> > Yes. >>>>> >>>>> okay, I've copied text: >>>>> >>>>> ANI: "Autonomic Network Infrastructure". The ANI is the >>>>> infrastructure to enable Autonomic Networks. It includes ACP, >>>>> BRSKI and GRASP. Every Autonomic Network includes the ANI, >>>>> but not every ANI network needs to include autonomic functions >>>>> beyond the ANI (nor intent). An ANI network without further >>>>> autonomic functions can for example support secure zero touch >>>>> bootstrap >>>>> and stable connectivity for SDN networks - see >>>>> [I-D.ietf-anima-stable-connectivity] >>>>> >>>> >>>> Wrong answer, IMHO. >>>> >>>> draft-ietf-anima-reference-model defines the ANI at some length. >>>> That should be the (informative) reference for basic terminology. >>> >>> I think that you'd like us to change the text to say: >>> >>> <t hangText="ANI:">The Autonomic Network Infrastructure as >>> defined by <xref target="I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model" />. >>> This document details specific requirements for pledges, >>> proxies and registrars when they are part of an ANI.</t> >>> >>> is this correct? Or did you want us to retain some other words above? >>> >> >> Personally, I'm happy with the reference (and with it being informational). >> Duplication of definitions always creates a risk of confusion. >> >> Brian >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Anima mailing list >> Anima@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
