IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] GRASP objective details for registrar (was: Re: ACP -10 [was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-08.txt])

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 25 September 2017 13:49 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 0A89A134318; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 06:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 Hw273VL_N55k; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 06:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
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 9E44413430A; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 06:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304BC2009E; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:54:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C1D80CFA; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:49:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20170922230153.GA32014@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <150044138257.25233.12391471568614147773@ietfa.amsl.com> <f5e84812-c2fa-cc16-4105-20f7791110f4@gmail.com> <20170918060429.GC31832@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <7e70c270-6cf6-58b9-2ce4-d811f9cd1c87@gmail.com> <20170920170726.GA18746@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <b392cf90-ffcf-d053-0a01-31b510277077@gmail.com> <20170922230153.GA32014@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:49:17 -0400
Message-ID: <25497.1506347357@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/Oc2PtAjhn_fVsz5dwbHuNJtkMSY>
Subject: Re: [Anima] GRASP objective details for registrar (was: Re: ACP -10 [was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-08.txt])
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: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 13:49:20 -0000

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
    > I always think of objectives as services, which would make
    > "XXX_registrar" the right word - it does not prescribe what
    > to do with the service: ignore, consume(join), buy-stock, resell, attack...

    > "objective" to me always implies an action, which i think is why
    > "XXX_join_registrar" was preferred choosen ?

We used the term "registrar" as the short form of Join Registrar/Coordinator.
After joining, it could be there are other registrars that can be reached to
renew certificates.  Those registrars do not necessarily have to do all of
the EST work with the MASA, etc.

I don't care if it's called XXX_join_registrar or whatever.

I do insist quite strongly that it be described in the BRSKI document.

    > I would like XXX = ACP because XXX = AN seems to imply the network is
    > autonomic, which i think by definition it is not unless we have intent ;-P.
    > XXX = ANI would also be wrong if for example we combine ACP with Netconf
    > Zero Touch and only offer EST-renew but not BRSKI-enroll.

I don't care which name.

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

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status