Subject: [Anima] UCAN BoF approved

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:07:28 +0200

Dear all,

As the responsible AD, let me share the news: The IESG/IAB approved the 
UCAN BoF yesterday.

Some concerns were discussed, which would need to addressed on this 
list, during the BoF preparation, or during the BoF:
- What is the commonality between all the use cases?
- How would the IETF attract people to work on this topic? For example, 
the operators.
- Not sure there are universal solutions to the problem space, so it is 
not clear that we should work on the general rather than specific solutions
- "100 people in the room is too optimistic", 30 is more realistic. I 
reduced it to 50 in the WIKI
     ACTION: this email should be forwarded to the homenet WG to attract 
more people

IMO, a successful UCAN BoF would be:
- You explain  (draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions>, 
draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis>) and you 
set up the stage on what AN is and what AN is not. The second part is 
equally important, when I see your BoF description "The fundamental goal 
of Autonomic Networking (AN) is self-management, including 
self-configuration, self-optimization, self-healing and self-protection. "
- You provide the criteria for which use cases are in scope.
- You review the different use cases, and try to classify them.
- You try to deduce commonality/requirements between use cases or you 
decide on which specific pain points you want to work on.
- You provide examples of protocol work you envision

*This Bof is accepted, however this is a conditional acceptance*: BoF 
accepted at the condition that the proponents put some serious energy to 
finish the 2 NMRG drafts.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:34:43 +1200

Hi Benoit,

> As the responsible AD, let me share the news: The IESG/IAB approved the

Thank you very much for your support and advocacy!
> - What is the commonality between all the use cases?

I think that extracting that is the whole point of calling for
and discussing the use cases, although it may need some detailed
work after the BOF as well.

> - How would the IETF attract people to work on this topic? For example,

That's why we want at least one real operator on the final agenda. While
they may not do the detailed work, we definitely them to be present as
customers for the work.

> not clear that we should work on the general rather than specific solutions

My personal opinion is that we will end up with a mixed solution, since
we cannot abolish existing mechanisms. But do we really want a hundred
flowers to bloom? I don't think so.

> reduced it to 50 in the WIKI

Well, I hope that's wrong, but we will see!

>     ACTION: this email should be forwarded to the homenet WG to attract

This email, or a more specific one?

> - You provide examples of protocol work you envision

Yes. We'd like to add one short talk from an operator about expectations;
since our first choice speaker has refused due to a change in his
circumstances, we need another suggestion or volunteer.

> finish the 2 NMRG drafts.

Understood. Of course we cannot control the NMRG itself.

Regards,
   Brian

> 
> Regards, Benoit
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 14:16:05 +0200

Hi Brian,
> they may not do the detailed work, we definitely them to be present as
Good.
> This email, or a more specific one?
I would say: up to you to promote the BoF in the best possible way :-)
> circumstances, we need another suggestion or volunteer.
Good addition.
> Understood. Of course we cannot control the NMRG itself.
Interestingly, my previous paragraph initially continued like this : 
"Not sure I would have a way to enforce this tough. " :-)
The point is that, since we deal with the same set of people, this 
"milestone" would be a good indication of your willingness to make this 
work happen.

Regards, Benoit

> .