Re: [Anima] Michael: IANA request for GRASP registry missing from BRSKI text

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 06 November 2020 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E7153A0D47 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 13:15:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ara9kSr0t14 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 13:15:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DA173A0D45 for <anima@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 13:15:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 180B338C79; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 16:15:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id X3m9JDn07AOL; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 16:15:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F85F38C70; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 16:15:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3B7E7; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 16:15:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
CC: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, warren@kumari.net
To: "anima\@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20201106162446.GB48249@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20201106162446.GB48249@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 16:15:21 -0500
Message-ID: <27682.1604697321@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/5zqo0ASJHko_BELzKywkYBWmUVw>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Michael: IANA request for GRASP registry missing from BRSKI text
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 21:15:26 -0000

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
    > Am i completeley confused, or did we miss until now the IANA request in BRSKI for
    > the new entries AN_Proxy and AN_join_registrar ?

I dunno what happened.
But, you are exactly right.
Who to blame? when in doubt? clearly, BLAME CANADA.

It wasn't until my third reading of:
  grasp-15, section 6, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15#section-6

that I saw that GRASP actually does create a _GRASP Objective Names Tables_.
I was going to complain that there was no registry created, but it just
didn't have it's own heading:

   GRASP Objective Names Table.  The values in this table are UTF-8
   strings which MUST NOT include a colon (":"), according to
   Section 2.10.1.  Future values MUST be assigned using the
   Specification Required policy defined by [RFC8126].

   To assist expert review of a new objective, the specification should
   include a precise description of the format of the new objective,
   with sufficient explanation of its semantics to allow independent
   implementations.  See Section 2.10.3 for more details.  If the new
   objective is similar in name or purpose to a previously registered
   objective, the specification should explain why a new objective is
   justified.

    > I was just checking IANA actions for ACP and did not see these two in the GRASP
    > registry:

    > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-44.txt

    > Not sure about the process, e.g.: if "specification required" (GRASP registry)
    > mandates the IANA text in the BRSKI RFC... I fear it does ? If three is an easier
    > way as having Warren approve another rev... ?

I think that the text has to go in.
Warren needs to approve the change, and IANA needs to review, and then the
text needs to go in now or at AUTH48, depending upon where the RPC really is.

I have version -45 ready to post, diffs are at:

I think that this is non-constroversial, does not require a WG LC, and can
slide in at AUTH48, but as it required IANA review, it's better if it happens
sooner.

It looks like the YANG is now 2-3 characters too long in places, so I've also
rewrapped that.  The base64 in the examples will also need to be reflowed
ick.

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-44&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/master/dtbootstrap-anima-keyinfra.txt

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [







--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide