Re: [Anima] ANIMA-WG: pls chime in: early allocation for otherName code points (draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane)

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Thu, 02 July 2020 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 B656A3A081B; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 06:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 TIohOnaYKO71; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 06:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 988973A0819; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 06:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA70C54843F; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:57:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id B4BB1440043; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:57:06 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:57:06 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: anima@ietf.org, "anima-chairs@ietf.org" <anima-chairs@ietf.org>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, housley@vigilsec.com
Message-ID: <20200702135706.GB11404@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20200702132922.GA11404@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <91A85F2F-D9D7-4D64-8672-50DF942A063C@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <91A85F2F-D9D7-4D64-8672-50DF942A063C@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/i-d-pG3DZgDbqPe4Z9WuEZD2EjU>
Subject: Re: [Anima] ANIMA-WG: pls chime in: early allocation for otherName code points (draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 02 Jul 2020 13:57:14 -0000

On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:41:14PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I have no objection.  My only caution is that otherName is poorly supported in the open source tool sets, but that is something we could conceivably work on.

Thanks, i would count it towards the need for experimentation.

If there is explicit feedback that otherName will be less well implementable/deployable
than URI / "urn:ietf:params:acp:node:<AcpNodeName>", then i would at this
stage of the process probably still rather start a second 3 page normative
RFC that specifies the use of the URN Name for ACP as an alternative,
because after 6 years it would be a nice change not to further drag our
heels on the first ACP RFC.

Cheers
    Toerless

> Eliot
> 
> > On 2 Jul 2020, at 15:29, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear WG (ACP author head/hat on)
> > 
> > ACP Revision -26 introduced a new otherName / AcpNodeName encoding for the ACP Domain Information
> > (now call AcpNodeName / acp-node-name). Michael Richardson (and potentially other) implementors
> > would like to update implementation to use this new encoding for interop testing,
> > which requires allocation of two IANA code points (technically i think only one is
> > required for the implementation, but the toolchain would require both if i understand it
> > correctly).
> > 
> > The early allocation process RFC7120 requires to vet the community for interest in the
> > early allocation, so pls. chime in with a +1, or if you must a -1 and explanation.
> > 
> > I'll do a +1 from the authors side.
> > 
> > The remaining requirements of RFC7120 for early allocations are AFAIK met.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> >    Toerless
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Anima mailing list
> > Anima@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de