[Anima] constrained handling of endpoint path names (from BRSKI-AE discussion today)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 18 September 2020 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 DBE723A07F9 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mtin1bgmVpMN for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 310C33A07E5 for <anima@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (CPE788a207f397a-CMbc4dfb96bb50.sdns.net.rogers.com []) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D7471F45B; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 19:59:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 6978D1A022D; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:59:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>, "Werner\, Thomas" <thomas-werner@siemens.com>, "anima\@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>, "steffen.fries\@siemens.com" <steffen.fries@siemens.com>
In-reply-to: <AM8P190MB0979CE69D3BB9F5C302CFCB8FD3F0@AM8P190MB0979.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <3f2d1790efb44ac39405a23dc592dd89@siemens.com> <20200730161142.GB62130@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <12431.1596541563@dooku> <2c4323c817134845ae7c36b41fd239c1@siemens.com> <11029.1596647559@localhost> <eee14f13f5cf4183bf69e999c5fcea04@siemens.com> <6058.1597841627@localhost> <f3981ca4bde844dbb27213ae96185967@siemens.com> <AM0PR10MB195606BD9019E5E94244175DE7540@AM0PR10MB1956.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <AM8P190MB0979CE69D3BB9F5C302CFCB8FD3F0@AM8P190MB0979.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Comments: In-reply-to Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl> message dated "Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:44:36 -0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:59:53 -0400
Message-ID: <102939.1600459193@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/OhlsW6aY7xenfFhoc70TH_LtuIY>
Subject: [Anima] constrained handling of endpoint path names (from BRSKI-AE discussion today)
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: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 19:59:59 -0000

Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl> wrote:
    > I created a Github issue for constrained-voucher to capture the outcome
    > of this discussion:
    > https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/issues/51

Thank you.

    > (Reminder: There are also a couple of more open issues. I can work on
    > these too and have already contacted Peter about these.)

I think that we can finally start digging these items out of the ditch
created by ACP and BRSKI stalling up the process.

In constrained-voucher/brski, there is a CoAP RD call:

     REQ: GET /.well-known/core?rt=ace.est*

     RES: 2.05 Content
     </est>; rt="ace.est"
     </est/rv>; rt="ace.est/rv";ct=TBD2 TBD3
     </est/vs>; rt="ace.est/vs";ct=50 60
     </est/es>; rt="ace.est/es";ct=50 60
     </est/ra>; rt="ace.est/ra";ct=TBD2 TBD3

I don't really know how to ask for multiple things.
  Clearly, we should be asking for "ace.brski" now?
  Do we have to change our allocation somewhere?
  I don't see any IANA activity around rt=ace.est/rv, unless it's section 9.1?
  which regisgters things, but I don't understand why it asks for ranges,
  because I have no idea where those *numbers* would go.
  I probably just don't know enough about this stuff.

I think that RFC6690 should probably be a normative reference.

I guess that we would have gotten all of the end points associated with
draft-ietf-ace-coaps-est when we above asked for ace.est.

RFC6690, section 4.1 [
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6690.html#section-4.1 ]

does not seem to permit two or three things to be returned, just wildcards.
What would happen if, when asked for rt=anima.brski, that it returned the
entries for ace.est and/or blah.cmp?

Is it late enough that we could just switch to CoRAL?
Do I even understand what means.

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