Re: [Anima-bootstrap] peer and domain [was BRSKI State Machine]

"Max Pritikin (pritikin)" <> Tue, 18 October 2016 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F28129663 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 07:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.952
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.952 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NnX_y1zhzmg4 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 07:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 824E112966C for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 07:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2978; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1476801436; x=1478011036; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=0/mxw80MtutVJD995sUDVrz2yzQULHojnmAz/t2lmbs=; b=We6R79CB/rKdz5FGsdSXbs4QolqfrxO/2tbpxh+OFg1IbY7aOYF05n7K +i9LOD/mv4jE7mRsg4l2F6Q2/PXpTOgC8GBps1DYBsebswOLmib0CsWtf Ste7L5gS6ye6hZLwEEePD0iOJVuvRi1FwgOW5KeZ0M6x+1kh9t7UCyDa2 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,362,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="163299237"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Oct 2016 14:37:15 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9IEbFLX010258 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:37:15 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:37:14 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:37:14 -0500
From: "Max Pritikin (pritikin)" <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Thread-Topic: peer and domain [was BRSKI State Machine]
Thread-Index: AQHSKMzDVhUNHbdjR0OSbE5FP+t8tKCunHYA
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:37:14 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <>
Subject: Re: [Anima-bootstrap] peer and domain [was BRSKI State Machine]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the bootstrap design team of the ANIMA WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:37:21 -0000

> On Oct 17, 2016, at 5:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
> On 18/10/2016 12:05, Max Pritikin (pritikin) wrote:
> ...
>>> - I think we need to bring out more strongly that the state machine needs to track peer and domain. Because, if there is a failure, the pledge should, depending on the failure of course, not try the same domain again, and probably not the same peer either. This isn't coming out today. 
>>> In fact, this is why I liked the "adjacency table" so much that I presented in Berlin (and before): Because there you see much clearer that, if enrolment fails with peer x, you may just move to the next one. As mentioned it's all there, but to a new reader this won't come out clearly, I'm afraid.
>> Yeah, I can see your point that this is buried in the text of 3.1.1 where it is implied that there is a list of "services returned during each query” and in failure the list processing "picks up where it left off” but thats pretty subtle. 
> What exactly is the "peer" in the above text? I tend to assume it's the proxy.
> In that case it seems to me that the discovery process (whether it's mDNS
> or GRASP) will discover all available proxies regardless of domain. And then
> try them in some order of preference TBD.

Agreed. From the perspective of a Pledge new device anything discovered is a “proxy” or perhaps a registrar but it doesn’t yet know the domain(s). 
> Also, all of this needs to work in the absence of an ACP and therefore
> of the ACP's adjacency table. That applies to GRASP too, because in order
> to perform its various link-local actions, it needs to know which interfaces
> it has and which link-local addresses it has. And it learns of its link-local
> neighbors as a result of discovery. So while I fully appreciate the value
> of the adjacency table, we need to be functional without it.

Michael things of discovered proxies as adjacencies for the table. I think of them as a “list of discovered proxies”. The concepts are similar and Michael is correct that the current sentence could be clearer.

- max

> Rgds
>    Brian