Re: [Anima] We want BRSKI and ACP!

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 11 March 2020 13:58 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 DD20E3A1930 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 06:58:06 -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 6D-r2phyy4Zu for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 06:58:02 -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 1B61C3A192F for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 06:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39BC438985; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:56:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF538AE8; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:57:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
cc: Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <8e18470b-1d6a-19f1-efb2-bc2e72ef2665@gmail.com>
References: <8e18470b-1d6a-19f1-efb2-bc2e72ef2665@gmail.com>
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: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:57:56 -0400
Message-ID: <6011.1583935076@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/JKZra4M4lbj0P_v8gu-UfoJVMKY>
Subject: Re: [Anima] We want BRSKI and ACP!
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: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:58:07 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Could those on the hook for the ACP and BRSKI drafts, which have been
    > very seriously delayed, update the WG with the plan for getting them
    > approved? It seems to me that there has been endless nitpicking, of the
    > kind that is appropriate for full Standard status, but very surprising
    > for Proposed Standard where there is no expectation of perfection.

I don't know what kind of plan I can relate: It seems to be above my pay grade.

For BRSKI, since IETF106, all DISCUSSes, except Ben Kaduk's desire to have
the examples redone have been cleared.  I had originally tagged redoing that
for AUTH48 time, since all IANA allocations would be done by then.
All allocations have been done at this point, and in January I redid the
examples in the non-normative Appendix with the right OIDs.  Ben found some
errors (one repeated certificate), and so I generated the examples again.

I then asked Jim Schaad and Max Pritikin (a BRSKI co-author, who has been
redirected on other important Cisco work), to validate.  Max reviewed, and
this resulted in an additional clarifiying sentence committed to the github.
(I thought I posted it on Monday, I don't seem to have. I will do that now.

Warren Kumari has taken over as the sponsoring AD.

    > Can we expect these drafts to be approved in the next one or two weeks,
    > for example? If not then, when?

I know that ACP has gone through a similar set of DISCUSSes, and I think that
they are mostly all done.
I don't see an update from Ben.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane/ballot/
says that most have No Objections, rather than Yes. Three YES are needed to
override a DISCUSS.
I guess this document has been in front of the IESG since 2018 when Terry was
an AD!

I think that the WG participants need to actively engage the DISCUSSes and
the choices that the WG has made.

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