[Anima] other drafts looking for feedback
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 03 November 2020 19:23 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 D1BEB3A10F5 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:23:10 -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 rcqJk6XnrvxS for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:23:09 -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 DC0863A044A for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:23:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2709938983 for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 14:23:08 -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 SZY-PTnxsAGJ for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 14:23:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B36738982 for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 14:23:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F43112B5 for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:55:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 11:55:10 -0500
Message-ID: <16789.1604422510@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/FeHrvUYwxp-pus_h9gO3-CyGXg0>
Subject: [Anima] other drafts looking for feedback
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: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 19:23:11 -0000
Hi, thank you for the adoption call for: Title: Constrained Join Proxy for Bootstrapping Protocols Name: draft-vanderstok-anima-constrained-join-proxy-04 I understand your desire to stage things carefully and not overwork the WG. On the other hand, this single thread of execution leaves a lot of participants idle. There are a number of other drafts that my co-authors and I would like to get some feedback from the WG chairs as to whether or not they fit into the ANIMA Charter. You might even argue whether they belong as BCPs/Informational Applicability Statements, or what exactly. Please, if they don't belong, then please tell me sooner, so that we do not expend effort on these documents. The drafts are: draft-friel-anima-brski-cloud: This document specifies the behaviour of a BRSKI Cloud Registrar, and how a pledge can interact with a BRSKI Cloud Registrar when bootstrapping. draft-richardson-anima-masa-considerations: Operatonal Considerations for Voucher infrastructure for BRSKI MASA This document describes a number of operational modes that a BRSKI Manufacturer Authorized Signing Authority (MASA) may take on. Each mode is defined, and then each mode is given a relevance within an over applicability of what kind of organization the MASA is deployed into. This document does not change any protocol mechanisms. draft-richardson-anima-registrar-considerations: Operational Considerations for BRSKI Registrar This document describes a number of operational modes that a BRSKI Registration Authority (Registrar) may take on. Each mode is defined, and then each mode is given a relevance within an over applicability of what kind of organization the Registrar is deployed into. This document does not change any protocol mechanisms. draft-richardson-anima-l2-friendly-acp: Autonomic Control Plane challenges for Layer-Two Switched Networks This document details the challenges with building an Autonomic Control Plane on Campus/Enterprise networks which are built out of layer-two (Ethernet) switched technologies. This document does not propose a specific solution as yet, but details a number of possibilities, and what it would take to standardize each possibility. draft-richardson-anima-voucher-delegation: Delegated Authority for Bootstrap Voucher Artifacts This document describes an extension of the RFC8366 Voucher Artifact in order to support delegation of signing authority. The initial voucher pins a public identity, and that public indentity can then issue additional vouchers. This chain of authorization can support permission-less resale of devices, as well as guarding against business failure of the BRSKI [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] Manufacturer Authorized Signing Authority (MASA). In addition, there is some interest in a JWS-signed-JSON draft. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
- [Anima] other drafts looking for feedback Michael Richardson