Minutes IETF106: anima
minutes-106-anima-00
| Meeting Minutes | Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach (anima) WG | |
|---|---|---|
| Title | Minutes IETF106: anima | |
| State | Active | |
| Other versions | plain text | |
| Last updated | 2019-12-25 |
minutes-106-anima-00
ANIMA WG Agenda for IETF-106, Singapore
Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach
Chairs: Toerless Eckert & Sheng Jiang
Minutes by: Artur Hecker (Session I), Michael Richardson (Session II)
17:10-18:40 Tuesday Afternoon Session III, Sophia
15:20-16:50 Wednesday Afternoon session II, Hullet
*************************************************************************
*****************************Session II**********************************
*************************************************************************
Tuesday (November 19th, 2019) 1.5-hour session:
17:10-18:40 Tuesday Afternoon Session III, Sophia
*************************************************************************
1. WG Dash - 5 min
17:10 - 17:15, by co-chairs
Chair (Sheng): WG documents state - several key documents still have
DISCUSS notes from the IESG, need to finish this to advance the WG
*************************************************************************
2. WG Document Update (25 min)
2a. Autonomic Control Plane - 15min
17:15 - 17:30, by Toerless Eckert,
draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane
No questions
2b. GRASP API - 10min
17:30 ¨C 17:40, by Brian Carpenter, draft-ietf-anima-grasp-api
No questions
*************************************************************************
3. New Chartering Unscrambling- 10 min
17:40 - 17:50, by co-chairs
Ignas/ IESG: the dates are not a problem, just decide what dates you
want to have and it can be done
Ignas: milestones are at the discretion of the WG
Discussions about more documents (non expired docs, etc)
MIchael: I suspect there will be no significant changes to the protocol
on the wire. No risk in adopting new things.
*************************************************************************
4. Information Distribution in Autonomic Networking - 10 min
17:50 - 18:00, by Artur Hecker, draft-liu-anima-grasp-distribution
Laurent: do you mean to limit all info distribution to an event?
Artur: no, we only use event notifications for non-instant data
distribution, i.e. for PubSub.
Laurent: do you mean that it must be done the way you did with GRASP?
Artur: well, we suggest a solution based on GRASP because it has some
advantages, but it would be good to review and adjust the
implementation.
Brian: GRASP is indeed quite good at some things, we should use it
this way.
Ignas (IESG): it's hard to understand why you mix informational GRASP
API and other things in this document (also raises a general
question for the GRASP API doc presented before).
Artur: can only answer for our part - we do specify the "on the wire
protocol" extensions to be able to implement a required ANI
functionality.
Sheng: probably should move the API part to an appendix or take it
out completely.
Toerless: need to clarify the standard (common) and non-standard ways
how to do info distribution.
Artur: yes, we actually used GRASP to have a common denominator
integrated in ANI per default. Other ways are possible as way,
they can even use GRASP to communicate.
Artur: authors generally do not claim that this document is ready,
but we certainly need this document to become WG document, such
that we can get more community comments.
Chair: who read the document / who agrees to adopt it as WG doc /
who disagrees to adopt it as WG doc?
Around 10 hands / similar number to previous question / none
Chair: In principle, the WG reach rough consensus to adopt this draft.
The chairs will confirm this through adoption call to the list.
*************************************************************************
5. ASA environment & Anima ecosystem - 20 min
18:00 ¨C 18:20, by Brian Carpenter, draft-carpenter-anima-asa-guidelines
Michael: we need to ask ourselves "elevator pitch" questions like "What
is this ANIMA all about?"
Michael (permissionless IPv6 network?)
David Dai: two questions 1. can you give some examples for application
scenarios? 2. what's the relationship between the AI.
Brian: 1. one example scenario is already mentioned, it's the address
assignment. 2. AI/ML: still a research topic, not clear how we will
do it. It should be there though.
Sheng: when we rechartered, we left AI out of scope on purpose. The
point is that the ASA AF functionality i.e. the logic, e.g. AI logic,
will be independent of the protocols on the wire.
Laurent: library of AFs / ASAs / etc. - need to address usage scenarios
Laurent: we could see a parallel between an ASA and a network function
Toerless: there is a difference from VNF which is a virtual
representation of a hardware thing (== no changes in protocols and
APIs) to the decomposition approach taken in ANIMA
Ignas: happy about the discussion in general. It looks like we look
for a problem for an existing solution. We probably need to reach
out to the user community and ask them what problems they have.
Without having a clear problem space, we are going more into the
IRTF view, but this is IETF.
Michael: the answer to Ignas' comment is a tangible demo. This should
be the next step. We need to get those guys "excited".
Ignas: you have your milestones since rechartering. You need to
follow and achieve the milestones.
Toerless: time is up, we need to concentrate on the draft. Call for
adoption will be issued to the list.
*************************************************************************
6. Layer 2 Autonomic Control Planes - 10 min
18:20 - 18:30, by Brian Carpenter, draft-carpenter-anima-l2acp-scenarios
Mark Smith: potentially 5000 node subnets in future VLANs
Remy Liu: in your mind, what's the limit?
Brian: hard to say, but we see at many IETF meetings...
Remy: Is the requirement for IPv6 support only Linklocal?
Brian: yes, link local
Remy: is IP here mandatory or optional?
Brian: in principle we could do it directly over L2, yes, but we would
not have the APIs.
Remy: but normally you mean L2/IPv6/GRASP?
Brian: yes.
Toerless: if we continue this work, we need to understand that ANIMA
already supports management of L2 networks. This should be precised;
it's a special case.
Ignas: there is a WG working on topology bootstrapping (LSVR)
*************************************************************************
7. Introduce of ETSI ZSM on closed loops - 10 min
18:30 - 18:40, By Laurent Ciavaglia
No questions.
*************************************************************************
*****************************Session II**********************************
*************************************************************************
Wednesday (November 20th, 2019) 1.5-hour session:
15:20-16:50 Tuesday Afternoon session II, Hullet
*************************************************************************
1. WG Dash - 5 min
15:20 - 15:25, by co-chairs
MCR says that there is little to say about constrained-voucher.
*************************************************************************
2. WG Document Update (20 min)
2a. Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructures (BRSKI) - 10min
15:25 - 15:35, by Michael Richardson,
draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra
2b. Constrained Voucher Artifacts for Bootstrapping Protocols - 10 min
15:35 - 15:45, by Michael Richardson,
draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher
MCR update on document.
Sheng asks that no new documents be adopted without finishing current
documents.
*************************************************************************
5. (changed order) ACME Integrations with BRSKI - 15 min
16:15 - 16:30, by Owen Friel, draft-friel-acme-integrations
Unclear where this document should live.
TE: has this document gone to EMU, etc. yet?
OF: TEAP requires some tweaks, and this was discussed in EMU.
XiaLing(XL): this is about using a public CA?
If this is a private CA, do we need the same adjustments?
OF: what we see is that most customers with private CA run MSCA, and
so you need their custom APIs/SDK. THere are some on-premise CAs
that also support ACME, and then you could just use that interface.
OF: this document will go to ACME on Friday?
TE: is this document ready for adoption in whichever place makes sense?
OF: I think we need to figure out where the document goes first, and
then get the right views?
MCR suggests that this belongs in ACME due to the need to get WGLC
review from ACME.
*************************************************************************
3. BRSKI Cloud Registrar - 15 mins
15:45 - 16:00, by Owen Friel / Michael Richardson,
draft-friel-anima-brski-cloud
TE: what is the difference between a default Cloud Registrar, and a
Cloud Registrar?
OF: the default is one that is baked into the firmware.
XL: how do I understand what the home domain?
OF: you plug in a device at your home, and you want the device to
register to your head-quarters. Is it possible to have more than
one home domain? That's a general BRSKI question? Like if you have
different Enclaves?
MCR: Yes, that would just be two systems.
OF: There are three options on the table, which option should we
support? (If we support none, then BRSKI is wrong)
TE: They seem to be co-located with MASA?
OF: the cloud CA does not have to be with the MASA?
MCR: there are three choices, and we probably only need two of them.
OF: one issue will be whether the local operator wants to run a CA?
*************************************************************************
Interjected: ACP DISCUSS on rfc822Name.
Ben presents a mapping of the rfc822Name -> X509 extensions.
MCR: this is about getting all this crap in through current CA
APIs/processes
*************************************************************************
4. BRSKI-AE Updates - 15 min
16:00 - 16:15, by Steffen Fries, draft-fries-brski-async-enroll
started at 16:40pm. No questions.
*************************************************************************
6. Delegated Voucher - 15 min
16:30 - 16:45, by Michael Richardson
No questions.
*************************************************************************
7. Summary & ANIMA future activities - 5 min
16:45 - 16:50, by co-chairs