IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] Discovery of proxy/registrar insufficient (GRASP and more).

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 05 May 2022 14:18 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 8AB51C157B5D for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2022 07:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gGactGWO5pba for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2022 07:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15D0DC157B59 for <anima@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 May 2022 07:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4128438B7D; Thu, 5 May 2022 10:31:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id zYZ9YFt1akB4; Thu, 5 May 2022 10:31:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5755F38B7B; Thu, 5 May 2022 10:31:05 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1651761065; bh=l3KJPvKD1CzZlgQv3//Rk/w7ghtJst00ymilhNudku8=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=4Sp0EZKs4Y4cbdlHzXJPAS3kgVZ4ax/Noq1uXZEJsQ/QiAPccLbldNR+Jdz8fmeJp SJakmHijNTVRiGZtG+hkcEjVMBFKbQzgrSaYxB+4m6ZTR5aM0wtiUXr7dklCvdbQ20 R7nFjj2QQ7qc3V3Gl/RWZIhUCc2x4VlyD/XcMf7iap8rBTgXz5h5aGEITwjVH643k8 5wLf6MDHorpG4ZPFC2+qMOFrrN2OBrmp0ZtnSFL092SgTgitMIgPcX1dDt8/BX1fow JbONV3a3gfjw8nA/lqpRjhaXW/DtltS6DkFjAkkdSEP107kurAlAwZHzZPYP7MFTz/ HIVrgBbNpUh6w==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81AA65EB; Thu, 5 May 2022 10:17:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, anima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <823eaecd-ca8d-356a-6637-c12d9b6cdee4@gmail.com>
References: <YlWUA7xhMU2XtJsz@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <388791.1649870361@dooku> <Ymc57cpieDGAcn1X@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <8866.1651512153@localhost> <823eaecd-ca8d-356a-6637-c12d9b6cdee4@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
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-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 10:17:53 -0400
Message-ID: <21723.1651760273@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/Z-bQpxOdRBsj2c3N3efULBFnKm8>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Discovery of proxy/registrar insufficient (GRASP and more).
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Thu, 05 May 2022 14:18:04 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> I'm fixing it at:
    >> https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-join-proxy/pull/20
    >> Brian, in RFC8995, we leave "objective-value" empty, while this document
    >> wants to set it to "BRSKI_JP", and I don't think that does anything useful.

    > That's a design choice you're free to make, of course.

I now realize that probably we need to use this value in the AN_Registrar
objective to name the different protocols.

We have, so far:
1) Classic RFC8995, HTTPS/TLS/IP connectivity.
2) Constrained-voucher, CoAP/DTLS/UDP/IP connectivity (stateful proxy)
3) Constrained-voucher, CoAP/DTLS/CBOR/UDP/IP connectivity (stateless proxy)
4) 6tisch RFC9032, OSCORE/CoAP/UDP/IP with stateful proxy
5) 6tisch RFC9032, OSCORE/CoAP/UDP/IP using CoAP extended token (RFC8974) for
stateless proxy

In theory, if the CoAP server is properly written, (4) and (5) ought to be
identical as the extended token would always be returned.

2,3,4,5 are all over UDP.
Should constrained-join-proxy establish an IANA Registry for the
objective-value then?

I was mistaken when I wrote before that objective-value could be empty.
I think that we actually need to fill them all in.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email