In principle I'm happy with that, and I agree that it would be a good
idea. However, I hope we can avoid another WGLC with this change? (Sheng?)
Looking...
Actually, the intro has this paragraph, which I think pretty much covers
this case:
As discussed in [RFC7575], the goal of this work is not to focus
exclusively on fully autonomic nodes or networks. In reality, most
networks will run with some autonomic functions, while the rest of
the network is traditionally managed. This reference model allows
for this hybrid approach.
Isn't that even a better description than "professionally managed",
which has itself raised a lot of questions?
My vote for now: We're good! No changes needed.
Michael
On 26/02/18 22:21, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
While looking at Pascal's ACP review, I noticed that although ANIMA
scope is limited by charter to "professionally managed" networks,
we do not mention that scope in draft-ietf-anima-reference-model.
It seems like something to be added to the Introduction.
Comments?
Regards
Brian Carpenter
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
