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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

Rgds
    Brian