IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] ANI Objectives-//RE: Calling new works and discussion

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 22 September 2017 20:12 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 B139A132D67 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 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, URI_NOVOWEL=0.5] 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 wGxgpsP8vunw for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x233.google.com (mail-pf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (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 9655E133018 for <anima@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id z84so1056369pfi.2 for <anima@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rws+d3k64l7HyOqpyJQax43qH2w/5oi8LRD+ZDtwQqk=; b=SdHiUG4O1IpJ2TotJnoU7fCQsRyXcwqjhIdagktvlYzk3VSeK/Zqo1R1/dWNpdTEZN 9vjJwB8kstTrFyD3vZkpS9KSrlEOBg0ghH3+H6+Zyc2T22Gv6J0G5HsI/UPZrGbEKOTo ZVPRW+Zas8dlhHkkCPRqTc/QGcwl1tUyXO8kr/OU0V6ebI0WaUJ1wW1HrS2zdOGD1pmz G9JxTXun2g5NaGr/7a8SaH8ScjdXxyiFElSDcBO8GKSMi0MhEcq4JBLNkMFfkbkpQItF p5kftXN8SQco1NQZJvoC4MovmYgxplxWF/4VqgSpHB1SPkaxOoa/E5XXRJfigZS5oOSE 75Xw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rws+d3k64l7HyOqpyJQax43qH2w/5oi8LRD+ZDtwQqk=; b=T+epZC8Ft0cfe6oHNw18yJba3nYfkheK9lfJAhizzbB+LBAOMcI4gddCGmBu0du/Zv iq8s77ob762+iZQQCTM1yPQ1ptfd04p9ctVn+9X2IJcCUl2ZqZwrr72bQInAeCZCDvdZ QQqW1p5NOp+HjFgfkPjEwZBVayH00Oy/VqA+n89mrjVxMavj3AOGoZLo8QRNWYG7DE/g H9nD3ql4zEYBmyo4CX/PQt8/wVUvCbmn2PuwLfOnn6RRA3An6lXs1feZiGaPXeRBAEOS WgHuQ6GYCNkDCKupAdON8EE2MV6g8Ue+PHzDyE9ZsDzxECtctaJ7gMQU0nltjYCXLtsz GSnA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUi6nknuEaepNtnQyytQ7JvCrxu55TL3fgKbapud4GuTSDzMWLVf 7f6/WJOpWew6zqH1juImrN0/PA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCxjOZAwDEz8MttQezudBmtDsNjl9IoXA1r8Acjosemra9YoHVAdlPSMuUqd+IyPzdBIWy9fA==
X-Received: by 10.99.119.195 with SMTP id s186mr254206pgc.263.1506111133762; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e001:3f51:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e001:3f51:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 13sm750324pfm.138.2017.09.22.13.12.11 for <anima@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: anima@ietf.org
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C302AC7B@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <63d6e469-c366-4a63-490d-66f38ee539a6@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 08:12:21 +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: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C302AC7B@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/e9a30_1PcPqjQAuLOkkXFGMKaDg>
Subject: Re: [Anima] ANI Objectives-//RE: Calling new works and discussion
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: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 20:12:17 -0000

On 22/09/2017 20:44, Liubing (Leo) wrote:
> Hi Dear all,
> 
> To response to the Chairs' calling, I'd like to firstly mention an existing work, draft-carpenter-anima-ani-objectives, which belongs to the first category as Sheng defined below:
>> Leveraging the Current ANI (GRASP, ACP & BRISK)
> 
> It is very specific technical details (just like "option names" in other protocols) related to all ANI components (BRSKI, ACP and GRASP), but necessary for interoperability.
> We used to have some discussion about whether to define these objectives in each ANI component. But there is two problems as I see:
> 
> 1.      This draft defines an additional value for GRASP message syntax to indicate transport-protocol. So far it is actually used for BRSKI to indicate IP-in-IP encapsulation. However, from definition perspective, this value is generic than BRSKI-specific, so I'm not very sure it is proper to defined it in BRSKI.
> 
> 2.      Technically, it is ok to define each GRASP-objective in each ANI document, but would it be a bit scattered?
> 
> In any case, I think the ANI objective content should reach consensus and be published as soon as possible.
> Then, the problem again: shall we make it as a standalone draft, or incorporate them into each ANI draft?

The first conclusion after the previous IETF was to add the objectives into the
corresponding drafts. That is in progress for BRSKI and ACP. For the "stable
connectivity" draft, it is not included in draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-06
but it is also not clear what is needed. Toerless should comment, but I think
he believes that NOC services are expected to be discovered via DNS-SD
in non-ANIMA scenarios, so maybe the best approach is to bridge ANIMA based
discovery to DNS-SD somehow. I have done a little work on that topic**,
but we need some clarity on the requirements.

So in answer to your question, I think we can let the ani-objectives draft
expire, but we may need a new draft on the DNSSD aspect.

** At https://github.com/becarpenter/graspy, see AskDNSSD.py and GetDNSSD.py

Regards
     Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email