* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Anima Status Pages

Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach (Active WG)
Ops Area: Benoit Claise, Warren Kumari | 2014-Nov-03 —  

IETF-99 anima minutes

Session 2017-07-19 0930-1200: Congress Hall III - Audio stream - anima chatroom


minutes-99-anima-03 minutes

          ANIMA IETF-99, Prague, Czech
          Chairs: Toerless Eckert & Sheng Jiang
          Note taker:
          Anima Session, Wednesday (July 19th, 2017) 9:30-12:00, Congress Hall III
          1.  WG Bash, by co-chairs
          Sheng give a brief update for all WG documents. All WG milestones are
          in the
          matureor almost mature situation. So, it may be a right time for the
          group to
          start discuss potential recharting and potential new work times.
          2. WG Document Update (65min)
          2a. ANIMA Generic Signaling - by Brian Carpenter (remote),
          [Michael Richardson]: the purpose the ANI-Objectives document is to
          some thing into a single place, so that people can compare them and
          consistency about them.
          [Toerless]: can we have this discussion during the ANI-Objectives slot?
          [Terry]: as the response AD, I just pressed the button to approve GRASP.
          That will come out shortly. (People applaused)
          2b. ANIMA Voucher Profile - by Kent Watsen/ Max Pritikin,
          [Michael R.]: is it possible for us to write a YANG extension as
          we can't overwrite grouping in another YANG model... we can set them
          or false as we need?
          [Kent Watsen]: that's kind of option 2 in the slide: change YANG to say
          they are not mandatory.
          [Toerless Eckert]: we could define voucher request in BRSKI; re-use the
          voucher YANG model in multiple protocols;
          [Kent]: this actually my preference as well, to keep the Voucher YANG as
          ??? as possible.
          [Michael R.] a greater issue to discuss with the AD. Are we OK to finish
          it here, or we need re-do WGLC across all groups?
          [Terry]: cross-WG involvment is important, to do another WGLC is
          this happens quite often in the IETF, opportunity to let other field
          of it, and give feedback, so pls do that.
          [Sheng]: we do cross-WGLC in 6tisch/Netconf?
          [Terry]: WGLC happens here, but you chairs need to explicity bring the
          attention to the 6tischt and Netconf.
          [Sheng]: ok. The ANIMA chair will do a second short WGLC on this
          and send to both 6tischt and Netconf soon after IETF week.
          2c. ANIMA Auto Bootstrapping - by Michael Richardson,
          [Michael.R.]: are design team summaries useful?
          [Terry]: as an AD, the summary is useful to me.
          [Dean Bogdavic]: useful, it gives me summary, but I need to catch up it
          [Sheng]: summaries in the mailing list is useful, even for your design
          team itself.
          [Toerless]: something haven't been put in the lastest version, e.g.
          ANI-Objectives draft proposes some text.
          [Eliot Lear]: regarding MIME type, we could use other types, I'd like to
          work it offline and propose something.
          [Michael R.]£ºI'd like to finish it by next ietf, to be in the RFC queue.
          [Sheng]: do you think it also need cross-post WGLC?
          [Michael R.] I don't think it needs to be the same way as the voucher
          draft does. BRSKI doesn't use Netconf.
          2d. Autonomic Control Plane - by Toerless Eckert,
          [Sheng]: You actually mean EST is mandotory reference, but it is not
          mandotory procedure in ACP.
          [Toerless]: EST is mandatory procedure, BRSKI is not. BRSKI is a
          of EST, only for initial act, how you initially get a certificate. Even
          in that initial stage, it doesn't rely on EST. For renew, you can only
          use EST or any other methods. But in BRSKI,you must use EST for
          [Michael R.]: Yes, there are Netconf etc a bunch of other things to do
          that. Regarding to lifetime in the ACP document, SA lifetime might
          exclude the lifetime of the certificate, you need to consider that. If
          others implement other than ACP do renew, then ACP will be kicked out.
          [Toerless]: you need to implement CRL, the preferred model is using
          BRSKI, instead of renew, we just do enrollment, that's the preferred
          [Sheng]: I welcome this kind of good change, but make sure update the
          corresponding change in reference model.
          [Toerless]: for reference model, there is nothing new, just our
          responsibility to do that.
          [Michael R.]: the RPL profile draft is a template, just copy it, don't
          reference it. The profile document won't be published.
          [Toerless]: plan to make a candidate WGLC draft before the next ietf.
          [Sheng]: with my Chair Hat on, when I called agenda in the mailing
          list, you guys (Toerless & Michael R.) didn't response. But today
          you guys spent 25min in each slot, while I only assigned 10 mins for
          each of you. Now we're 30min bebind the agenda.
          [Michael R.]: sorry about that.
          2e. Prefix Management - by Sheng Jiang,
          [Toerless]: I think it's good to make it for IPv4 prefix. IPv4 needs
          more automation than IPv6. But in an informational document, it's not
          easy to figure out every detail. Maybe some follow-up work to specify it.
          [Toerless]: I'll do the shepherd in next 1-2 weeks and post it.
          [Sheng]: We'll need a minor revision in 1 week before WGLC.
          2f. Stable Connectivity - by Toerless Eckert,
          [Toerless]: From my experience the biggest remaining challenge for IPv6
          is really bad IPv6 support in NMS. So there is the ugly  IPv4/v6 NAT
          workaround in the document.
          [Michael R.] Data Center IP/ICMP v4/v6 translation may be a wrong
          [Toerless]: I just wanted to give one example of a stupid way to get the
          old NOC work.
          2g. AN Reference Model - by authors,
          [Jefeson]: asking a WGLC to chairs.
          [Sheng]: I'll do the shepherd review next month, and probably you'll need
          another revision, and then let's consider WGLC. And thanks for saving
          3. Objectives for the Autonomic Network Infrastructure
             - by Brian Carpenter (remote), draft-carpenter-anima-ani-objectives
          [Brian] Question to the WG, take this as a separate document, of include
          the materials into relevant documents?
          [Toerless]: if separate BRSKI and ACP ASAs, there would be more work
          than just sending to messages. I'd like to be a single ASA.
          [Brian]: Exactly.
          [Toerless]: negotiation ablility of GRASP, I'd love to explore for the
          negotiation of ACP security channel.
          [Terry]: Yet another informational docuemnt is always a pain for reveiw.
          Personally I'd like it to be in one Section or Appendix and very  easy
          for reference.
          [Michael R.]: easily quickly compare the grammer and flavours, collect
          them whole bunch together; should not be canical, not published as
          an RFC, but remain it in the WG.
          [Toerless]: similar to the RPL template document?
          4.Potential Recharter Works - 35 min
             - by Sheng Jiang/Toerless Eckert (co-chairs)
          [Sheng]: "Proffessinally managed network" might include the IoT networks;
          but home networks maintained by user,is clearly out of the scope.
          [Sheng]: if human intervene is involved, it's not autonomic, but we
          could define APIs for triggering the Autonomic Network process.
          [Toerless]: always remind that we are in ietf, not the irtf. (Some
          considerations for re-charing): we need active contributors, when you
          propose some ideas, you need to contribute yourself, resulting in
          necessary and sufficient protocols; solve the customers' problems that
           we're aware of; don't boil the seal; etc.
          [Sheng]: Next, after discussion with the AD, and get permission of
          [Terry]: It doesn't quite happy in that order. I want to hear the
          discussion first, about what the WG wants to work on; then concentrate
          the ideas of what they want ot do to bring together a concise set;
          then consider the benefit of doing a re-charter based on that. I'm
          intrested now in seeing how many people turn up the line behind the
          microphone to express their opinions and also seeing that repeated in
          the mailing list. That would be indication(?) of where ANIMA would go,
          and how much intrest there is; and how many people there are to
          contribute to that effort.
          [Michael R.]: I don't see there is document about how to address the
          nodes and how to name them, but it seems like we can address that
          somewhere with a little bit of work. I don't see that hard, maybe I
          missed some complexity there. We have done a pretty good job of not
          boiling th ocean by never speaking the word "Intent". I don't know
          how SUPA WG do with the Intent. Maybe we need a coross-WG event,
          physical meeting inviting each other.
          ACP has no real use now, but will be soon. Onece people get use it,
          maybe others (Anima technologies) would be suddenly be adopted. Maybe
          the right answer is that we finish our work, and be quiet for a
          couple ietfs.
          [Toerless]: From practical perspective, we still have some gaps in
          curret docuemnts. ANI has some thing to do. For, Intent, let's
          continue the discussion, maybe the best thing now we can do is to
          change the name "Intent", since it usally cause people think about
          northbound interface to carry policies.
          [Alex]: the work of autonomic network should be continue, rather
          than finish it once (which would be a disaster). The first paper of
          autonomic network was 45 years ago, and it is continue. I would
          suggest maybe part of the work is to be concentrating the emerging
          software networks, virtual systems. You like it or not, this is
          going to be a trend. For my view, this should be a higher priority
          in this working group, rather than just adding more elements in
          existing things.
          5. * Anima Bootstrapping for Network Management
             - by Bing Liu, draft-nmdt-anima-management-bootstrap
          Giving the limited time, the micro is not open for discussion.
          6. * ANI Applied in IoT Network Management
             - by Bing Liu, draft-rfmesh-anima-iot-management
          Giving the limited time, the micro is not open for discussion.
          7. * Towards PubSub and Storage integration in ANIMA
             - by Artur Hecker
          Giving the limited time, the micro is not open for discussion.
          8. Summary & ANIMA future activities - by co-chairs
          Chairs will revoke discussion in the mailing list. The priority is to
          send the
          current WG documents to IESG, then discussion regarding to recharting/
          Meeting adjourned. See you in Prague.

Generated from PyHt script /wg/anima/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -