[Anima] operational considerations for BRSKI documents.
Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Fri, 01 May 2020 01:32 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr@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 01FA43A07A6 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 18:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 h6_8twv5OwSk for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 18:31:58 -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 00F243A07A3 for <anima@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 18:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE14838985 for <anima@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 21:30:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F123F3A for <anima@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 21:31:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: anima@ietf.org
X-Attribution: mcr
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: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 21:31:55 -0400
Message-ID: <21888.1588296715@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/QO4rhTD1TbsNQRBGFx1PzUmYvHA>
Subject: [Anima] operational considerations for BRSKI documents.
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, 01 May 2020 01:32:02 -0000
Chairs,
I'd appreciate if you could consider if the two documents:
draft-richardson-masa-operational-considerations
draft-richardson-registrar-operational-considerations
fit into the ANIMA charter. It is quite possible that the WG is not ready to
consider whether or not to adopt them, but prior to that, it would be useful
to know if the WG even thinks it can adopt them.
The MASA considerations document represents security advice to a
manufacturer, clearly what we think is BCP.
I would like to see it adopted. Either publish is really quickly with
intention to revise (maybe start the -bis ID immediately), or leave it as an
Internet-Draft some time, to collect feedback.
The Registrar considerations document is as much a profile of ACP as it is a
profile of BRSKI, and it does tend to wander into "Design Requirements" in
places. I don't appologize for being opinionated here.
This document might not fit into ANIMA, or the IETF at all.
(Oh, I know that we've published such documents before, but I'm not claiming
that was necessarily a good thing)
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
- [Anima] operational considerations for BRSKI docu… Michael Richardson