Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-distribution-07.txt

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Michael,

I actually agree your observation on the supportiveness of use case section. We were discussing to move use cases section into appendix. Overall, use cases here are not necessary or as a MUST. What we should focus on is the validity of technical requirements on Section 4. If yes, infrastructure would be used when it is ready and good enough to be used.



Sheng



>Hi, I recalled that I'm the document shepherd for this document.



>I did my shepherd review a year ago on version -04, and I also did a review



>in 2020 when we adopted it:



>  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/hCv5bZxBrzSzA6BjA5DY7_RDo6U/



>



>I am updating my shepherd review, but let me highlight some comments from



>January 2022 review, and my January 2020 comments that have still not been



>acted upon.



>



>I think that the use cases are not well supported.



>I can not comment on whether SBA is a reasonable use case, if it were, then I



>would expect a 3GPP document to cite this one.  Has that occured?



>



>I do not find the INC use case credible.



>I can see that yes, the INC needs data backup and data aggregation, but I



>don't see why they would do that via the ACP.  I can see that perhaps there



>is an ASA that would run over an ACP that would provision where computing is



>supposed to go, but the actual movement of the data seems to belong in the



>production network.  Then the data might move by rsync, etc.



>



>I don't find the V2X communications use credible either.



>This is because I don't think V2X will deploy an ACP, or for that matter



>*can* deploy such a thing as it would cross the boundaries of authorities.



>



>The thing that I **do** find credible is software updates, particularly within



>Enterprises and ISPs for their core switching equipment, but also for IoT



>devices that might be connected at the edge of the switching network.



>The firmware updates can be transfered across a high-speed network to the



>edge where slow/sleepy IoT devices can pick them up via one-hop



>communications.



>



>I did not find the Smart Home use case credible.



>Amazon, Google and Apple have invested in CSA/MATTER, and it has it's own



>communication fabric.  That spec does not cite this spec, so I don't see how



>this helps.



>



>



>--



>Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works



> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*



>



>



>