Re: [Anima] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-anima-00-15: (with COMMENT)

On 31/10/2014 03:14, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> On 31/10/14 00:02, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 31/10/2014 02:59, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> ...
>>> I support Ted's block (I think:-).  I suspect that this will be sorted
>>> out ok by the WG if it can be, but I'd also like some better clarity
>>> on how the security bootstrapping here and in homenet are
>>> related/differ.
>> IMHO understanding that (and where draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch
>> fits in) is part of the first order of business of the WG. I don't
>> think we can resolve it without more technical analysis.
> Agreed. My remaining, but for-now-ignorable concern relates to
> the current wording which sort-of tells anima to re-use homenet
> work in this space - I think it's likely different solutions
> for security bootstrapping will be needed and so we ought not end
> up trying to stop work on one such just because another exists,
> if the use-cases/environments are in reality sufficiently
> different. I'll try work with Benoit to suggest some better words
> but do agree that what's really needed is the detailed analysis
> which needs both WGs doing work and isn't a thing to try fix in
> either charter.
Here is what Stephen and I came up with:

OLD:

Where suitable protocols, models or methods exist (for example, in the HOMENET
WG), they will be preferred over creating new ones.

NEW:

ANIMA and HOMENET will need to co-ordinate to ensure that the commonalities and differences in solutions are
properly taken into account.Where suitable protocols, models or methods exist, they will be preferred over creating new ones.

This is now in the charter v19

Regards, Benoit

>
> S.
>
>
>>      Brian
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>