IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] brski-discovery vs constrained BRSKI (was: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-15.txt)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 23 November 2023 15:12 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 3079AC151076 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 07:12:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 Ca-dlKWpSQXz for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 07:12:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (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 0AD26C14CF15 for <anima@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 07:12:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (unknown [77.39.186.42]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AC8C1F951; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 15:11:58 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: relay.sandelman.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=sandelman.ca header.i=@sandelman.ca header.b="mLntR8D0"; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C3BBFA05FE; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:11:56 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=dyas; t=1700752316; bh=JozFKBSirgp4veMz47H62WRt+/SZ9HDw2mxuR5zxfbk=; h=From:To:Subject:In-reply-to:References:Date:From; b=mLntR8D0NKXB+PXQNaHrrnHKuvfiWuXX299E9KckY1GThNWm0Rg3OjKjHLzJVv6mE MF4yuOYEl8+fIsIe8OjcEVDw8Zud9mtcWVd8ocDOL56tHZV/HOcKoxc01t+/50/k4m pgpIuS2UJtAAa4MpY0FWtxDNFwIfYu2eVTMRJz5gehxyov6VFN7Cw9cYFw7g340c0N scm6MpAqSwtRo5DAk/rqSmzRXieUjvjV6k0mNWYD9Scr8J2/EZtT3H9UrDMpSgm9B7 YzCCYXSjmEUlrfBxOfCClKA+bUoS1nb5Zc7KcE06QpHZ1v0rFmAGMj60qw6AcZWqr6 4Ci4L/uKDAeNA==
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A89A05F7; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:11:56 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <b45f3cb5-0813-1697-6260-b48e77e425c9@gmail.com>
References: <169927900610.48296.8352405496672443803@ietfa.amsl.com> <3528359.1699280649@dyas> <DU0P190MB1978A1B7481FE707DAB7E507FDBBA@DU0P190MB1978.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <ZVzJYPPRunw5gCAu@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <b45f3cb5-0813-1697-6260-b48e77e425c9@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> message dated "Wed, 22 Nov 2023 08:57:41 +1300."
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: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:11:56 +0100
Message-ID: <319595.1700752316@dyas>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/bJBX8Y0GA0SGAGPXcDxo7hTPor4>
Subject: Re: [Anima] brski-discovery vs constrained BRSKI (was: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-15.txt)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 23 Nov 2023 15:12:05 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> 5.2.2. GRASP discovery
    >>
    >> This section is normative for uses with an ANIMA ACP.

    > So really, is there a natural scenario where constrained-join-proxy is
    > used in a region of the network where an ANIMA ACP is established? And
    > on balance, I have to extend the question to
    > constrained-voucher. Certainly, GRASP was not designed for constrained
    > nodes. There is no logic in using GRASP discovery for its own sake.

Yeah,
1) an ANIMA ACP where there are IoT gateways at the edge.
2) an network where it makes sense to use constrained (COSE/CBOR) vouchers
   for routers rather JSON based ones. (Whether or not they run over CoAPS or HTTPS)

    > To me, the conclusion is fairly obvious. Possibly the GRASP work done
    > in both drafts should be combined into a new draft, if you can describe
    > a scenario where constrained nodes participate in a full ANIMA ACP.

I'm fine with that, but then let's get it done already.
Code is waiting.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email