Re: [Anima] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12: (with COMMENT)

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Comments on some more of Ben's comments:

On 23/05/2017 13:25, Ben Campbell wrote:
...
> - 3.10.5: "SHOULD NOT be used in
>    unmanaged networks such as home networks."
> Why not MUST?

Yes, that is more logical.
> 
> -5, Privacy and Confidentiality: Did people consider IP Addresses and
> other potentially persistent identifiers as impacting privacy?

Here we are dealing with the addresses of network elements, not user
devices, so there don't seem to to be personal privacy issues.

> -7, Grasp Message and Options table: Why "Standards Action"? Would you
> expect some harm to be done if this were only Spec Required?

I have asked the WG's opinion.

> Editorial:
> 
> - Is section 2 expected to be useful to implementers once this is
> published as an RFC? Unless there's a reason otherwise, I would suggest
> moving this to an appendix, or even removing it entirely. As it is, you
> have to wade through an unusual amount of front material before you get
> to the meat of the protocol.

I have asked the WG's opinion.

> - Along the lines of the previous comment, I found the organization a bit
> hard to follow. I didn't find actual protocol details until around page
> 21. Procedures are split (and sometimes repeated) between the procedure
> sections and the message format sections. I think that will make this
> more difficult and error prone than necessary for implementors to read
> and reference.  I fear readers will read one section and think they
> understand the procedures, and miss a requirement in the other.

I understand the problem but I don't have a solution; there is an attempt
to give an overview before getting into message formats, but that leads
to some repetition as well.

> - 3.5.2.2: First bullet:
> Please consider a "MUST NOT construction. "MUST only" can be ambiguous.
> It would be helpful to explain why the loop count must not be more than
> one. I can infer that from the later sections on relays, but it was not
> obvious when reading this section. And unless I missed something, there's
> no text that puts the two ideas together.

OK

> 
> - 3.5.4.5: This section seems redundant to the similar sections under
> negotiation . Since those sections have more information, would it make
> sense to consolidate them there?

It makes sense to condense it. I think the forward reference is useful.

Regards
     Brian