Re: [Anima] join proxy documents

Dear all,

After a long silence, I want to manifest my interest in both documents:
- constrained-voucher that extends and completes [ace]est-coaps to cover
all non-est brski cases using coap,
- contrained-join-proxy that standardizes the stateless proxy using coap
and coap discovery.

The first document is an anima WG document, which has progressed very
slowly waiting for keyinfra to conclude.
The second was intended as anima WG document once the new anima charter
was adopted.

The separation in two documents makes sense in my opinion.
I don't know why the join-proxy document has slided over the WG horizon.
I still hope that the WG wants to adopt join-proxy. 
Implementations of both douments are in progress at this moment.

cheerio, and thanks,

Peter van ders Stok
Michael Richardson schreef op 2020-09-25 03:31:

> Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
>>> I have changed occurances of EST Server to "BRSKI Registrar", as I
>>> think that is more accurate.
> 
>> Not in draft-richardson-anima-state-for-joinrouter from my quick read.
> 
> No, that document is background and it is not intended for publication, and I
> didn't change anything in it.
> 
>>> Did we really want to standardize the StateFUL join proxy?
> 
>> Uhmm... isn;t that what we're doing with BRSKI proper ? That's a
>> stateful join proxy, right ? Aka: your question seems to be missing
>> some more context (stndardize stateful join proxy for context
>> XXXX... ?)
> 
>> Title:        Constrained Join Proxy for Bootstrapping Protocols
>> Document date:    2020-09-22
>> Group:        Individual Submission
> 
> The stateful method is same as BRSKI, but over CoAP, rather than HTTPS.
> That's why I'm asking if it is at all useful to specify anything.
> 
>>> Is it really interesting or relevant?  It seems trivial.  If we are,
>>> then we should contrast it.  An important clue is that it does not
>>> behave any differently, FROM THE PLEDGE point of view.
>>>
>>> The WG had expressed an interest in adopting this document, but the WG
>>> chairs have not provided any clear guidance on where they we go.
> 
>> I thought we primarily had the issue of the named author having
>> unfortunate issues to drive the document. If you want to take on the
>> ditors helm for it, then the chairs will be happy to proactively see
>> how to progress the document in the WG...
> 
> Peter, Panos and I are authors.
> Yes, some of the authors had time constraints, but that's why we have more
> than one author, isn't it?
> 
>>> This document could be merged into ietf-constrained-voucher, but I
>>> think we made it a separate document because it is not needed on all
>>> networks, just *constrained* multihop/MESH networks.
> 
>> Yes, we have some decisions to make wrt. how much to merge into fewer
>> documents and how much to keep the solution definition modular.
> 
>> Given how we went through half a decade of probably too-big-documents
>> in ANIMA, as an individual conributor i would err on the side of more
>> smaller documents, but i guess as a WG chair i should just leave it to
>> authors and rough consensus of the WG.
> 
> Well, constrained-voucher started out as being constrained-RFC8366,
> with the intention of having a constrained-BRSKI document.
> (Direction towards: more documents).
> During that period, we managed to split of est-coaps-ace, which is in the
> RFC-editor queue.
> 
> Then constrained-voucher ate up constrained-BRSKI, and now it is bigger.
> 
> I would say, that the WG should adopt the work based upon what things it
> wants to solve, and then if content needs to be shifted around, merged,
> split, etc. then the WG can decide that.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima