Brian: as part of the fixes for Pascals review, i added a section 1.1,
applicability & scope that mentions the "professionally managed"
and also has one small paragraph at the end re. constrained devices/
networks. I hope this provides qukc/useful scoping of what the ACP
does.
Cheers
Toerless
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:17:01AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Pascal,
>
> Great review!
>
> > - Section 3; the IOT certainly could use an ACP. It would be
> > useful to scope the feature that is proposed in this document, whether it
> > is compatible of not with constrained environments, whether it needs
> > adaptations, point on Michael's enrollment draft. It would also be useful
> > to indicate whether the ACP works between L3 bridges, IOW whether ACP
> > operates the same (over IP) regardless of the packet forwarding layer in
> > the data plane;
>
> Perhaps this point belongs in draft-ietf-anima-reference-model. ANIMA is
> chartered for "professionally managed" networks, and the reference model
> says: "At a later stage ANIMA may define a scope for constrained nodes with a
> reduced ANI [autonomic infrastructure] and well-defined minimal
> functionality. They are currently out of scope." So while your point is very
> valid, it's been considered out of scope so far.
>
> I'll leave the rest of your excellent comments to the ACP authors.
>
> Thanks
> Brian
--
---
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
