On 01/10/2014 18:27, Markus Stenberg wrote:
On 1.10.2014, at 16.20, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote:
Based on the previous UCAN BoF, we are considering having an ANIMA WG:
Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach
This is now a proposed charter, under consideration by the IESG.
This is your chance to provide feedback on
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/anima/charter/
Note also that a BoF has been requested, just in case.
Since HOMENET was mentioned during the UCAN BoF, I thought of double-checking
with you guys.
TL;DR: Please either add homenet (and solutions already in the WG) to the WG
goals, or drop IoT too and just focus on enterprise.
Looking at the milestones, I am very curious about lack of requirements or
architecture work before promoting solutions and even WGLCing them.
As mentioned in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/anima/current/msg00246.html
A few observations, to start with:
1. Autonomic Networking could be a huge explanatory field.
2. From the BoF, we heard (among other points):
There is interest but focus ... focus ... focus on things that
could be done quickly
3. The IESG has also been realizing that the process of problem
statement/use cases/requirements/architecture/protocol takes way too
long for the industry.
4. If a great architecture document to rule all autonomic functions
would have been easy, it would been done already. In NMRG for
example, which had plenty of time to think about it! So an
architecture as a starting point is not the right approach.
5. A WG can always be re-chartered in future phases
These are the reasons why Joel and I asked the BoF chairs to lead a
charter discussion, focusing on only 2 use cases
Notably, adoption of a solution (discovery+negotiation protocol) before
adoption of use cases seems like putting cart before the horse.
Valid point.
Regards, Benoit
It is not also clear to me how well the suitability of the solution has been
evaluated. For implementation of some autonomic, distributed algorithms,
point-to-point negotiation protocol such as the suggested solution is far from
optimal. In case of homenet, we moved from hierarchical DHCPv6 PD
(point-to-point hierarchy) to a distributed algorithm
(draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment*) which was result of over two years of
draft updates, academic proving of correctness etc.
Also, while dropping homenet from list of target things is _a_ way to solve the
conflict that we already have autonomic solution for that particular problem
which works (it was mentioned there before in e.g. IETF 90 not-quite-WG-forming
BoF), even better would be to have a general solution that _also_ works in a
homenet. Especially as IoT is just specialized type of homenet, I assume,
although it is covered only by one mention in the whole charter (and the rest
does not seem very IoT oriented).
Looking at the solutions, from homenet developer / draft writer point of view,
I would welcome a general trust bootstrapping framework. I am not convinced by
the current solution draft for that (it assumes too many components for a home
network case at least). A lot of the other things seem somewhat enterprise-y
(control plane with IPsec, own routing protocol and ULAs? Not in IoT device at
least, nor probably in constrained homenet router), or just unsuitable, such as
the negotiation protocol that does not seem like a good fit for distributed
decision making which is usually the key thing in autonomic networking.
Cheers,
-Markus
.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
