Re: [Anima] Processing: draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra

Michael Richardson <> Mon, 27 January 2020 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8390E3A0FA2; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:39:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CoQgPm2Djmc6; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:39:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34F373A0FA0; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0A538985; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 17:38:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7EA61; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 17:39:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Warren Kumari <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
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-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 17:39:01 -0500
Message-ID: <20539.1580164741@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Processing: draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 22:39:12 -0000

Warren Kumari <> wrote:
    > I'm now the responsible AD for draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra.
    > As mentioned in

I didn't realize that some reply from non-chair would be useful, so I didn't.

    > I'm trying to figure out what the state on this document it, and what
    > is outstanding for it to be published.

Hi, thank you for taking this on.

    > Can someone summarize for me where this currently stands?
    > There are literally hundreds of mails on this, and it was a long time
    > since I last read / balloted on this - I'm trying to restore state
    > without having to go back to the beginning...

    > A: it **looks** to me like the -34 version addresses Benjamin's
    > "examples should be correct" concern in "Section C.1.4.  Pledge key
    > pair", but I'm not quite sure (his email and this version both
    > happened on 2020-01-03, but I'm not sure on the ordering).
    > Can someone confirm this and then I'll follow up with him?

Ben has an outstanding DISCUSS that would like the examples updated.
I'm in the process of doing this.  I felt that it could wait until AUTH48,
when we'd be sure to have all IANA allocations, but we have since early
allocations for everything, so it can be done now.

I had hoped to finish the code changes by last Friday, but it will be another
couple of days before I can fix the code with the right OIDs and validate the
examples work.  Ideally, I would interop the updates against the other
implementations that Thomas Werner has.

    > B: Alissa confirmed that her concerns have been addressed, and cleared
    > her DISCUSS.


    > As this isn't / wasn't my WG, please SHOUT LOUDLY to make sure I don't
    > miss replies / updates.

Roman had a DISCUSS.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]        |   ruby on rails    [

Michael Richardson <>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-