Re: [Anima] [Gen-art] dealing with many the secdir and genart comments [on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> >> The authors seriously believe that this will result in an attempt to
    >> >> boil the ocean.  Yes, BRSKI is exciting for many and opens many doors,
    >> >> but in the context of the *ANIMA* Charter, we strongly think that this
    >> >> document should leave the oceans alone, and deal only with the ANIMA
    >> >> ACP usage.
    >> 
    >> > Yes, violent agreement. From all the interest outside ANIMA, the basic
    >> > idea of BRSKI is a big hit and will be re-used in other contexts. I
    >> > think a strong statement about the specific scope of *this* document
    >> > belongs in the Abstract and Introduction, with a comment that variant
    >> > usages of BRSKI in other scenarios will be documented separately.
    >> 
    >> Brian, these are my proposed changes to the abstract, intro,
    >> and adding a section on ACP Applicability.  I think that there is probably
    >> more to say there.

    > Perhaps, but I think these changes clarify the scope correctly.

My sense in writing the words was that there were more words needed.
But I didn't know what else I could nail down scope-wise, so I stopped.

-- 
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-