IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"

(Benoît Claise) Yes

Comment (2015-03-11 for -02)
No email
send info

During my review of this document I noticed the following issues that the authors and ISE may want to address.

   For the work in the IETF and IRTF we define the "self" properties on
   the node level.  It is the design goal to make functions on network
   nodes self- managing, in other words, minimally dependent on
   management systems or controllers, as well as human operators.  Self-
   managing functions on a node might need to exchange information with
   other nodes in order to achieve the required goals.

First, it's not too clear what "goals" are. It's the intent, right?

Then, I see:
   Autonomic: Self-managing (self-configuring, self-protecting, self-
   healing, self-optimizing); however, allowing high-level guidance by a
   central entity, through intent.  An autonomic function adapts on its
   own to a changing environment.

From this definition, I deduce that the intent is provided by a central entity.
You might want to stress it. 


   For the foreseeable future, fully autonomic nodes and networks will
   be the exception; autonomic behaviour will initially be defined
   function by function.

What is the difference between an autonomic node and a fully autonomic node?
Definition:  Autonomic Node: A node which employs exclusively autonomic functions.
Proposal: remove "fully"

- OLD: netconf

   Therefore, also nodes in an autonomic network require a northbound
   interface.  However, the design goal is to maintain this interface as
   simple and high level as possible.

We can also receive the intent from other nodes, right?
So it's not always a north-bound interface from a central entity, right?
Might be worth mentioning. The term "control plane" is mentioned later on, and this one doesn't imply the notion of northbound.
Worth reusing? Up to you. If you do, "northbound interface" is also mentioned in section 4.3


However, in an autonomic network reporting should happen on a network wide basis. 

However, in an autonomic network, reporting should happen on a network wide basis. 


   [I-D.irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis] points out that there are already a
   number of fully or partially autonomic functions available today.

Same remark about fully in fully autonomic function


This does not, however, imply the elimination of skilled
   human operators, who will still be needed for oversight, policy
   management, diagnosis, reaction to help desk tickets, etc. etc.

Two instances of "etc"

It's confusing that Section 5 contains capitalized terms, for some new terms defined in that section.

   An Autonomic Network consists of Autonomic Nodes.  Those nodes
   communicate with each other through an Autonomic Control Plane which
   provides a robust and secure communications overlay.  The Autonomic
   Control Plane is self-organizing and autonomic itself.

It's the first time I see Autonomic Network and Autonomic Nodes capitalized (personal taste: I prefer when definitions are capitalized). For example, "Autonomic Control Plane" is a definition in this section 5.

I was expecting that the figure 1 would at least contain the autonomic node and autonomic function building blocks specified in section 2.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2015-03-12 for -02)
No email
send info
For Benoit,

In this text:

"At the time of the ANIMA working group creation, this work was well underway,
and was therefore mentioned in the charter."

I think "the charter" means "the ANIMA charter", but if the conflict review response said that, it would have been clearer to me.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection