Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-richardson-anima-state-for-joinrouter-00.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 17 January 2016 22:26 UTC

To: anima@ietf.org
References: <20160117031203.15651.47936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <569C1513.7000803@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:26:27 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160117031203.15651.47936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/fiu9yTBrh2Q-zsnmbgAlJSu6nHo>
Subject: Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-richardson-anima-state-for-joinrouter-00.txt
Precedence: list

> 1.  Introduction
...
>    It order to
>    avoid providing globally reachable addresses to the prospective new
>    network member, it assumes that a Join Router.  

That sentence ends a bit abruptly.

Section 3 has various sentences like:

> In response to discovery, the proxy would reply with...

Does that mean you have settled on the new node sending a discovery multicast?
(Just asking. GRASP could work this way round, or by the proxy occasionally
flooding its information for new nodes to hear. It could even send a URI as
the immediate response to discovery.)

> 3.4.  4.  CoAP/DTLS with relay mechanism
...
> The new node would then initiate a DTLS session over UDP

I don't understand where the certificate comes from in that case.

Do you plan to add pros and cons for the various methods?

I realise that your purpose is to describe all the choices, but I think
we should immediately wipe all the NAT approaches off the table. IMHO,
we must never encourage any form of NAT for IPv6.

Regards
   Brian

Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-richardson-anima-st… Brian E Carpenter