Re: [Anima] We want BRSKI and ACP!

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 11 March 2020 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD20E3A1930 for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 06:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6D-r2phyy4Zu for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 06:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B61C3A192F for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 06:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39BC438985; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:56:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF538AE8; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:57:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, Warren Kumari <>
cc: Anima WG <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
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: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima] We want BRSKI and ACP!
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:58:07 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <> 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.
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 <>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-