Re: [Anima] Next steps for the reference document

["Liubing (Leo)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael,

I'm glad to work on the following items: 
-	Naming section needs meat. What names are used for, where it is in the domain cert.
-	Addressing section needs to bring in recent discussions. Needs to include how an ASA uses addressing. per node or per ASA. (I think we concluded per node).
-	Need considerations for APIs: How can ASAs use the ANI?

Best regards,
Bing

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anima [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Michael
> Behringer (mbehring)
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:19 PM
> To: Anima WG
> Subject: [Anima] Next steps for the reference document
> 
> Thanks for all who volunteered to participate in the reference doc. While
> detailed discussions may be between the contributors, the main technical
> discussions should probably take place on the main list. Here, I summarise
> my view on what needs to be done in the reference document.
> 
> If someone thinks he/she can produce text for the respective sections,
> please let me / the list know.
> 
> The overall goal is to show how all the various drafts, protocols, and
> discussions in the ANIMA WG fit together.
> 
> Points to address:
> 
> -	We should have a short section on intent. Explaining ingest of intent,
> distribution, the nature (on top of what's in RFC7575). That intent is signed,
> time stamps, etc. Probably pointing back to RFC7575. (Note intent
> distribution is handled in section 7.3)
> -	Do we want to address "constrained" AN nodes, with limited
> capabilities, here? I think so... We'll need that for AN in constrained
> environments. This could go into a new section in section 3: "constrained
> network elements".
> -	The masa section needs to be written. The masa will be an optional
> element. Needs to point to the bootstrap draft, which explains the basics.
> -	Naming section needs meat. What names are used for, where it is in the
> domain cert.
> -	Addressing section needs to bring in recent discussions. Needs to
> include how an ASA uses addressing. per node or per ASA. (I think we
> concluded per node).
> -	Domain certificate template. We should write a section on the AN
> domain certificate. How the various fields are used.
> -	Need to explain sub-domains
> -	Section 9 needs to be worked out. This is all about conflict resolution.
> Maybe we should re-name that section? RFC 7575 already mentions this.
> Maybe we don't need much more here.
> -	trust management: inside a domain, between domain and sub-domain,
> and between domains. This should become a new section.
> -	Need to treat the question of the "out of band" ACP versus the inline
> ACP. The two models both work, but there are implications, different
> benefits, drawbacks, etc. This needs to be explained.
> -	Routing: In the case of a virtually separate ACP, as in
> draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane, we need to also define a
> routing protocol (thinking of the discussion in homenet, this might be
> "fun"...)
> -	Need considerations for APIs: How can ASAs use the ANI?
> -	Need considerations for a data model. What it should cover, scope.
> -	We should also describe the management angle
> -	Security considerations need to be expanded. Threat analysis needs
> work; need general security considerations, talk about the PKI and trust
> model, etc.
> 
> Thoughts? Anything missing? Any volunteer for a specific part?
> 
> Michael
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima