Re: [Anima-bootstrap] BRSKI State Machine

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 17 October 2016 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BDD41295A5 for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lcgboTdvnHvi for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0DDE1297C9 for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r16so59137594pfg.1 for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DXrxV056YFNXAEMuX9HlPLCX93To3Y6X5bWXpAWRwqU=; b=UTEQonfrIegDjrBzisee3OTNcv31JbS++3XJe2uGwsmJsxjg8kEl3fT56N3XTQGEyQ oOFJAMJMuNkzLhNs4eOIVXhN86xlCZ6zHGFm3hArcIAzmvurqctVbiWqiJLUz/13GM+q uK+k6mm433ceoPdNoRFbocrp86F3Ti+DHbNB2C5wDG7oRw3b9ShMv/YkOjsY3S1vKx2m 7cQCiSlwDSAadTGa9k8XMMfU68oUREydnk8DzPtKkuUZVH5omQIbWqBnjA6a+KDlZOjG DQdY24O08Isv1fs8GfkJjKWlTB9WnIPzSyXUofq+lYl5li++YyGg5WcuiPtfnOVjVGPO +WVQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DXrxV056YFNXAEMuX9HlPLCX93To3Y6X5bWXpAWRwqU=; b=DkGhB5EgMDddqxN6hinP0JcyzLnB9coPp8Z+mpXZzZuHvxOWimVAgiP6BaamFSIK7/ PhPBM4hdPHkhz01SH9k9Tb1LDdoZC4ZTeihYhXIub6uvQZ6b6aDqSduTqjk6dW4HQdaw i7w6sy5C3sqGdS2Jo1V2k/pV2Km+QZJJDmjWn4wjxfSdMVpt8jU2O+qnVX8emu29g6kO 6otgYgcDh5WuY4TynfBXpC0xwJpm5vE+en+cLdkGyfNCRVBJTWwC0OeHDEfkOSHdmORV B/1E3TfBQhbnuPYpV4jic6w5FQP78i4Ey8szatrK5Jq+75Xlbk+fBUPEepehd/4hUvP4 kIog==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rlf1E+QUTVfFN5aKbOq4j0qU1WK19MrIxXfmR3GNsB5P5hdoRpnSrmiMAXUKSQkHQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id w15mr33008081pgc.155.1476733255300; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id m20sm49986812pfk.96.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <>, "" <>
References: <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:40:53 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima-bootstrap] 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: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:40:57 -0000

Hi Michael,
On 15/10/2016 03:42, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
> * First of all, one thing isn't coming out clearly (it's there, but somehow not obvious at all): We have three "paths" through the algorithm, and it is the *pledge* that has "hard coded" which paths we're taking: 
> 1) join any domain (first come first join)  
>    --> No MASA required
> 2) require audit token 
>    --> MASA required, audit mode
> 3) require authentication token 
>    --> MASA required, ownership tracking mode
> [I really hope we agree on that!!!]

What about the air gap case (no external interaction allowed, by site policy)?
Would there be a simulated MASA in that case? In any case, that is not a choice
that the pledge can make.

> - we need to specify precisely the discovery method, with mDNS field names, and other details. In my head we're using mDNS here, and I *think* we agreed on that? 

No, I think we agreed on supporting both mDNS or GRASP discovery; it is of course the
latter hat I've modelled. We have no need of mDNS for GRASP-capable nodes, but we must
support mDNS between the proxy and a non-GRASP-capable pledge. I've got no objection
to also specifying mDNS between the proxy and the registrar, but I think it's

Indeed the details have to be specified; I haven't formally written them up for
the GRASP methods but they are embedded in my Python code.