IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] two EST question/suggestions

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 13 September 2017 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 CDA1A133033 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 VCbJunVi8tCf for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x236.google.com (mail-pf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90210132D45 for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id y29so1869017pff.0 for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=t3TIT3G4Q+LFWnegiNPIuZxq8ru5wwqpHKgDXmE0zOo=; b=aJdRtbLtTPxibqNVuNSD7srTcBXwJpjTwAZmp1jCqPAkvs1XAkP3QllymBf89C+iEE 6H0+TBnde7TC9dp3hc/Rcc6CDMHxkyApBMCFXQJLrD/5Aml2yUBM0SBoreOlFWkZJpcq b2hVJ5WqO0At9SkU3EqchZG3N0w8VQYUBkR9IT99QpPruGHbHChwuQAgejRAeK3Qu8b/ P0cMYdwt4XRbNHY/TyWCe0zURmqpBHur8NecZ67JMuPWT56WI2AipKyb/15sYYwuFl56 97+kcDC8pQm4lDDp4ny2g+ml8peYtN3qzCq7xu8YFcKsNGemM9giNvuid8W9tRZvtA59 lKyg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=t3TIT3G4Q+LFWnegiNPIuZxq8ru5wwqpHKgDXmE0zOo=; b=CdwKP/b9SANA5stMfa/ENwV2LkjBxSzGiYac3FdOpkFtg6/twbL+40QmjjuKxdEehg MJgFFvKF0ERcOfQZDFEVHSpNVbz6nA73U3TgdaYBeLegDIE2+QXUJeyuH6/YlAoduuB2 bKtr1yYdbZ/HTIpsfnwXfFkrjwUUEkYPAAC1nNx/saADze7joqwRUctR87RNSK1mpdrq Rpk3XktuooepaaCtP6QikX5GdCelBiiw/mBUll5PVna9Tz2Bg1xWiDDy8omv2gr1ekBY DzPYiRXQ3Oy1mOGSF/t+Z+usZdBCJ2hf3MJOgRM+Ebyj/8BQ4RLmtHJxPB4LCbDbzoF1 Cm9Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhp/Mw6Lt1Kp8gl7JGYt9DtrViRLwwaG9LdWiIE29VVkX6/vbYB Lw+tjrTWM3ThR7j8
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDoyKp4EnvS0wa9qyeDtYjRmkh9/NC1uJIis80Tf9bKmBGuq56H6P/6/8bsz11VC+IiXSRmQA==
X-Received: by 10.98.242.16 with SMTP id m16mr1422844pfh.72.1505333611749; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:57a7:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:57a7:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x4sm25470435pfb.101.2017.09.13.13.13.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: anima@ietf.org
References: <961.1504038708@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <BAA96F8A-C61E-4DE1-9837-7964A0E8B4A2@cisco.com> <2a1cf1e7-f668-cf76-d471-78585d7ad7ba@cisco.com> <8b165f89-3be1-c814-5a88-bf62f708972f@gmail.com> <27231.1505249495@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <ce8e9ee0-6695-b113-94b9-bb56142c537d@gmail.com> <6079.1505260663@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <5c00237e-98fa-9764-d816-919307bdd994@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 08:13:33 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6079.1505260663@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/RCVZxyWID7Ic17RfuPPiMjmo0XQ>
Subject: Re: [Anima] two EST question/suggestions
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 20:13:35 -0000

On 13/09/2017 11:57, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>     >> We are running over HTTP 1.1, we have to assume that.
>     >> The issue is that both client and server libraries will grow HTTP 2, and we
>     >> need to know if this is a problem.
>     >>
>     >> > It seems to me that we want to minimise the requirements for low end pledge
>     >> > devices, and every item that we make mandatory works against that.
>     >>
>     >> BRSKI does not target constrained devices;  in the future having only an HTTP
>     >> 2 library (because the application is using that) might be simplest.  Is it
>     >> going to work okay?
> 
>     > I don't see why not. But isn't there potentially a class of devices that
>     > while not being 'constrained' in the formal sense, nevertheless needs to
>     > minimise its software footprint? So the implementer will want to choose
>     > the solution with the smallest footprint, rather than whatever MTI we
>     > happen to define in 2017.
> 
> Yes, I agree with you.
> 
> That's why I would like us to permit pledges to support a single client HTTP
> library.  They will use whatever HTTP client library that they need for their
> primary application... so if it's a webrtc nanny camera, then it might well
> be HTTP2 + QUIC.
> 
> The problem with HTTP2 is that it permits requests and responses to be
> interleaved and not-sequential in the TCP sense.  This potentially has a poor
> interaction with the BRSKI state machine.  We ought to say something about
> this *today*.
> 
>     > Of course we can always change the MTI later, but if we say right now that
>     > the MTI only applies to the server side, adding new solutions for future
>     > types of pledge becomes more straightforward. As far as I can see, this
>     > would have zero impact on first-generation implementations; initially
>     > both servers and clients will support the MTI anyway.
> 
> My take is that the server has to support every single MTI that we have every
> supported.  That's okay.  But, HTTP 1.1 with persistent connections is the
> minimum (not the maximum).

Fair enough. I just want to be sure that when someone comes up with
a brilliant new method with a tiny footprint, pledges are free to adopt
it despite any MUSTs we write down in 2017.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email