IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] review of grasp-08

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 25 November 2016 05:30 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 3A3CC12943A for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 21:30:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-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 b67GizoSAAJD for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 21:30:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAB2E129418 for <anima@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 21:30:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28452054A; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:46:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EEAC637A6; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:30:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <dcd5711b-904d-fc6d-1f1d-5beba8d8816c@gmail.com>
References: <4565.1479941260@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <dee9e527-4e32-5abf-9b17-e6d96cc34f97@gmail.com> <10713.1480019847@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <dcd5711b-904d-fc6d-1f1d-5beba8d8816c@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:30:05 -0500
Message-ID: <3899.1480051805@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/6JhA0icE-0Arovv3uDENJbNLDVU>
Cc: anima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] review of grasp-08
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 25 Nov 2016 05:30:11 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Right. But to be very clear, at the moment the M_FLOOD syntax is

    >  flood-message = [M_FLOOD, session-id, initiator, ttl, (locator-option
    > / []), +objective]

    > but to associate a locator with each objective it would need to be

    >  flood-message = [M_FLOOD, session-id, initiator, ttl,
    > +[(locator-option / []), objective]]

    > That would be more powerful for the case you describe. Since the
    > locator option could be a URI, it would suit EST quite well, wouldn't
    > it?

yes-ish, but really, the proxy is in charge of where the Registrar is.
In a pure-ANIMA scenario, we don't use an EST URI.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email