Re: [Anima] last minute changes to BRSKI to do endpoint discovery

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 24 July 2020 03:46 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 84F183A09A9 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 20:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
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 RCeDU_CqzrNh for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 20:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
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 8838D3A09A3 for <anima@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 20:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87EF0389F7; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 23:26:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id PzjOh6ixDQgU; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 23:25:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7386D389E0; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 23:25:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B679A; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 23:46:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Brockhaus\, Hendrik" <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com>, "anima\@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>, "steffen.fries\@siemens.com" <steffen.fries@siemens.com>, max pritikin <pritikin@cisco.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR10MB3153F5AA4119DBDDB97F6D06FE790@AM0PR10MB3153.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <4a3b24b3737f4dcbbf3154c89d9c8200@siemens.com> <17250.1594397451@localhost> <a26f70c7dc5145b581f71ece3106529b@siemens.com> <26733.1595375481@localhost> <AM0PR10MB3153F5AA4119DBDDB97F6D06FE790@AM0PR10MB3153.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
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: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 23:46:27 -0400
Message-ID: <6971.1595562387@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/DxVSOIfUBs6-T_l9C9E3R-kYwR0>
Subject: Re: [Anima] last minute changes to BRSKI to do endpoint discovery
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, 24 Jul 2020 03:46:32 -0000

Brockhaus, Hendrik <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com> wrote:
    >> The thread ending at
    >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/MQkNXJJjMkP0nqKlNEaxDZ94RgI
    >> alludes to this, but the current -03 document does not include this proposal,
    >> because it would need to go into BRSKI itself.

    > I would appreciate to use /.well-known/brski for the endpoints
    > specified in BRSKI and use /.well-known/est for those specified in
    > RFC7030.
    > This offers more flexibility for future extensions like BSKI-AE.

Such a change would be large to BRSKI.

Brian suggests making this an update.
But, I think it would cause market confusion if we published an RFC with
/.well-known/est/requestvoucher, and then said, "no sorry, no we meant
/.well-known/brski/requestvoucher"

Would there be pledge implementations that would try one and then the other?
I will say that I'm *NOT* keen on including the Resource Link GET, but I can
tolerate it.


I think that we'd need to:
  1) blessing of our AD.
  2) pull document out of RFC-editor queue.
  3) revise it, do a WGLC on revision.
  4) get AD to put it back in queue.

The ROLL WG did this for a document last year when we realized that a new
document obsoleted some of the recommendations.  It took longer than planned,
but that was partly because the other document had to settle a bit.
I think we could do this in the time for the 2nd WGLC and about four days.



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