Minutes IETF103: anima
minutes-103-anima-01

Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach
      Chairs: Toerless Eckert & Sheng Jiang
      IETF103, Bangkok, Thailand

Monday (November 5th, 2018) 2-hour session:
13:50-15:50, Meeting 1, Afternoon session I

*******************************************************************************
1. WG Dash - by co-chairs
   13:50 - 13:55, by co-chairs

[Responsible AD (Ignas)]: ACP draft has two serious "Discuss" comments, what's
   your plan of progressing that?
[Sheng]: next presentation is for ACP draft.

*******************************************************************************
2. WG Document Update (30 min)
   2a. Autonomic Control Plane - 10min
   13:55 - 14:05, by Toerless Eckert, draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane

[Alissa Cooper]: thanks for addressing my comments. Confusing words...(???)
[AD]: (On the ACP draft, there might be a lot of new text from Toerless in
   order to respond to review comments) do you expect another WGLC?
[Toerless]: no, without WGLC.
[AD]: whether the changes are substaintial, confirm it with WG.


*******************************************************************************
   2b. Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructures (BRSKI) - 10min
  14:05 - 14:15, by Michael Richardson, draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra

[Dan Harkins]: prefer the passport icon over the baby carriage to represent the
    Registrar. (discussion of the slide content, not the draft)


*******************************************************************************
   2c. Constrained Voucher Artifacts for Bootstrapping Protocols -10 min
     14:15 - 14:25, by Michael Richardson, draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher

No comments.

*******************************************************************************
3.    Potential New Charter Unscrambling - 70 min
   14:25 - 15:35, by co-chairs

1). On Devops:
[Michael Richardson]: don't understand what the DevOps means for our charter.
   Give me an example?
[Toerless]: primary example is ASA, to think about what is necessary to ensure
   these ASAs can ultimately be deployed incrementally into a running system,
   instead of just the monolithic update of complete network operating software.
[Michael R.]: sounds like an implementation requirement not a protocol
   requirement; sounds like you're trying to tell vendors how to build their
   system rather than how to send the bytes over the wire which is really our
   major concern.
[Alex Clemn]: anima talks about "Self-" technologies, if that fulfilled, what
   is the role for DevOps.
[Ignas]: DevOps is a marketing term which pretty much means nothing. Trying to
   describe how things should be used vs. how things should be developed,
   those are two different things. And I think the focus of the charter should
   be on how to develop the things or basically the specification not
   necessarily how they are used in all possible cases.

2). On "Self-":
[Will Liu]: I find the scope of "Self-" is actually a very wide ambitious
   version. To me, the Self-healing and Self-optimization have some overlap.
   Not sure how would you clearly define the "Self-". I'd like to suggest if
   we use these terms in the charter, they should be clearly defined, rather
   than kind of marketing terms.
[Laurent Ciaviglia]: there are some definition for the chops "self-", we can
   add something very precise and concrete, it's not an issue.

[Volfgang Beck]:(from DT) when you talk about virtualization, are you thinking
   of multi-tenancy as well?
[Toerless]: that could be in scope, I was primarily thinking in virtualization
   about what happens with ANI or so.

3). On Slicing:
[Ignas]: 1. slicing, IETF doesn't work on slicing, slicing management seems
   strange in the charter. On the other hand, this seems to be a really very
   specific work item compared to the rest of the charter, which is generic
   enough to accommodate broader scope.
   Without AD hat, as a WG interested member, I would vote for removing
   slicing completely out out of charter.
[Toerless] Maybe other term like "multi-tenancy" is better. Removing it
   doesn't mean that we wouldn't be able to work on something.
[Ignas]: Slicing in the dataplane is VPN+, for management it is just another
   instance of dataplane+control plane, we already have all the mechanisms, no
   additional work needed here.
[Tae Sang Choi]: for autonomic slicing management, does it means management of
   the slices of many networks, or do you mean the virtualization of ANI and
   the fashion of managing that multiple ANI slices is autonomic? If it is the
   latter, I think it's within Anima WG scope.

4). On "Experimental"
[Ignas]: 2.for "experiments", if cannot result in running code, then might not
   be in the charter.
[Ignas]: the differences are on platform-specific implementations...try to solve
   one particular, seems not right.
[Michael R.] I think this really important stuff to do, maybe it's ok in our
   charter now.
   But I would be surprised, the concern I have is we put a bunch of stuff like
   this in our charter, you have very few people show up to do any work.

5). General:
[Benoit Claise]: I've seen buzzwords, AI, Machine-Learning, "Self-" ...
   Basically there are two types of charter: 1) inclusive, you say this is what
   you're working on and we could be accepting more work; 2) the one that are
   very like precise.
   Right now, we've got the mix of the two, I'm wondering if this is really
   the right way. It's perfectly fine to have a vision of Anima, there is one
   line, you have the vision and know everything there where to go. But you
   have 6 slides of all different possible things of what you want to work on
[Toerless]: an attempt to make people understand what is going on, rather than
   too general scope...
[Benoit Claise]: don't think Anima should a gallery of relevant work. Regarding
   to the scope, don't make it too broad.
[Toerless]: what's the criteria for "Broad";
[Benoit]: it is the list of drafts,
[Benoit]: I can bring 10 new documents pretending to fit into the charter.
   It's easy to make a charter to make everybody happy, but lost where we
   are going.

*******************************************************************************
4.    Trust networking and procedures for Autonomic Networking - 15 min
   15:35 - 15:40, by Tae Sang Choi, draft-choi-anima-trust-networking

Presented with no discussion time.

*******************************************************************************
5.    BRSKI enrollment for smart pledges - 10 min
   15:40 - 15:45, by Michael Richardson, draft-richardson-anima-smartpledge

Presented with no discussion time.

*******************************************************************************
6.    Constrained Join Proxy for Bootstrapping Protocols - 10 min
   15:45 - 15:48, by Peter van der Stok,
   draft-vanderstok-anima-constrained-join-proxy

Presented with no discussion time.

*******************************************************************************
7.    Summary & ANIMA future activities - 5 min
   15:48 - 15:50, by co-chairs

[AD]: please really do the re-charter, the charter is not for the AD, it's for
      the WG.

Meeting adjourned. See you in Prague:-)

*******************************************************************************
Skipped due to very limited time. More recent new works got higher priority.

a.    Title: Information Distribution in Autonomic Networking - 10 min
14:45 - 14:55, by Bing Liu, draft-liu-anima-grasp-distribution

b.    DNS-SD compatible service discovery in GRASP - 15 min
   14:45 - 15:00, by Toerless Eckert, draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd

c.    Autoconfiguration of NOC services in ACP networks via GRASP - 10 min
   15:35 - 15:45, by Toerless Eckert, draft-eckert-anima-noc-autoconfig