[Anima] My comments about : draft-richardson-anima-registrar-considerations-00

"Yangjie (Jay, IP Standard)" <jay.yang@huawei.com> Tue, 30 June 2020 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jay.yang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C43ED3A07B7 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 05:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8rtC_0rJMm9c for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 05:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C02313A07AF for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 05:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml728-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 17BDCE2A341BF7E7C173; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:45:08 +0100 (IST)
Received: from nkgeml709-chm.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml728-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:45:00 +0100
Received: from nkgeml704-chm.china.huawei.com ( by nkgeml709-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 20:44:58 +0800
Received: from nkgeml704-chm.china.huawei.com ([]) by nkgeml704-chm.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 20:44:58 +0800
From: "Yangjie (Jay, IP Standard)" <jay.yang@huawei.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
CC: "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: My comments about : draft-richardson-anima-registrar-considerations-00
Thread-Index: AdZO1zA5Op1A5ze8Sa67eaw7blOjAA==
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:44:57 +0000
Message-ID: <38e60e8da2004fbe8754dc1a8112abb6@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_38e60e8da2004fbe8754dc1a8112abb6huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/IwalATwkRndVGF3Uszy-uoI4z-4>
Subject: [Anima] My comments about : draft-richardson-anima-registrar-considerations-00
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, 30 Jun 2020 12:45:12 -0000

Hi, Michael,

I know, there are two parts interaction process in BRSKI registrar, one is with the pledge, another is with MASA. But current BRSKI Infrastructure have no suggestion for voucher calling mechanism.

Your draft for BRSKI registrar deployment give some considerations, which all are concerned by the operator.
To one customer, he may have many types of pledge. For scalability, not only the number of the current pledges, but also the type of other pledges.
So voucher calling mechanism on registrar, asynchronous mode is the best for practical deployment.
Is that so?

Certainly, if WG give some feedback for this, it will better.

Best Regards,