Re: [Anima] Shepherd review draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-09

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Wed, 21 February 2018 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 7366912D7E5; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 07:15:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.96
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.96 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 GVA-RfVQKvt6; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 07:15:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92E7C1270AB; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 07:15:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.77]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B4FE58C51A; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 16:15:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 7FA0AB0DB17; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 16:15:29 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 16:15:29 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180221151529.GF23498@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20180214010910.GA27823@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <23103.1519174480@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <20180221023844.GD23498@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <22048.1519182010@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <22048.1519182010@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/GpsSGXRFhLBJYsGW5LmJGpNYg20>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Shepherd review draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-09
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:15:36 -0000

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:00:10PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Yes, that in the thread, where I referred to a thread back in January 2017,
> in which you were involved in coming up with the names.
> 
>     >> +   , and may be
>     >> +   enabled only if the JRC indicates support for them in it's
>     >> +   announcement.  (See Section 4.4)
> 
>     > IMHO: sentence eend after "optional". Followed by "all proxy functionally
>     > needs to ... be enabled...
> 
>     > Aka: circuit proxy is a no-op too if the proxy does not discover a registrar
>     > supporting it. Not specific to advanced options.
> 
> Circuit proxy is a MTI for the JRC, and requires *NO* special support in the JRC.
> If the Registrar doesn't support listening on port 443, then it's not a registrar :-)

Maybe i just have an english language problems:

"may (be only enabled) if" implies to me "could also (be enabled) even if not",
but that would not be correct: No version of a proxy can be enabled unless
a registrar has been discovered by the proxy AND that proxy is announcing support for the
proxy method. And that applies to all proxy methods.

correct language:  "can be only enabled if" ?
                    ^^^

If i misunderstand english: what is the difference between may/can in this sentence ?

circuit-proxy is only MTI for ANI registrars, these sentences are not
constrained to ANI. I would assume in some derived solutions like 
6tisch or the like, registrar may only have non-circuit proxies.. ?!

Sorry if this is too much nitpicking.

>     > Rephrase ? Don't understand what this means (especially users). "other
>     > authors" ? "other docs" ?
> 
> If someone is using BRSKI in a non-ANI situation, then that entity should
> explain what kinds of things can occur after voucher.  So I prefer to remain mute.

ah! "user" = "author of followup work".

Thanks!
    Toerles

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