Re: [Anima] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Alexey,

Skipping your DISCUSSes, which are easy to fix:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As a general comment, the document has several SHOULD/MUST level
> requirements which are sometimes addressed at people deploying the
> protocol, sometimes at UI designers and sometimes at designers of new
> objectives. I generally don't mind, but the document doesn't always make
> it clear what is the intended audience for different requirements.

We'll look at that, but specific pointers would help.

> Other smaller things:
> 
> "Fully Qualified Domain Name" probably needs a Normative Reference.

FQDN is in the RFC Editor's list of acceptable abbreviations. But
I don't believe it has a normative reference - it isn't defined
in the DNS spec, anyway. I've had this problem before, way back
in RFC1900!

> 3.5.4.3.  Discovery Procedures
> 
> In 6th para:
> 
>    The cache mechanism MUST include a lifetime for each entry.  The
>    lifetime is derived from a time-to-live (ttl) parameter in each
>    Discovery Response message.  Cached entries MUST be ignored or
>    deleted after their lifetime expires.  In some environments,
>    unplanned address renumbering might occur.  In such cases, the
>    lifetime SHOULD be short compared to the typical address lifetime and
>    a mechanism to flush the discovery cache MUST be implemented.
> 
> How can the discovery cache be flushed?

I think that's completely implementation-dependent, so what can we say?
(In the prototype, it's an API call.)

> 3.9.5.4.  Locator URI option
> 
>    In fragmentary CDDL, the URI option follows the pattern:
> 
>      uri-locator = [O_URI_LOCATOR, text]
> 
> I suggest inclusion of optional transport protocol here to match other
> locators and to follow best practices for not encoding transport
> information in URIs.

I have asked the WG about this in a separate mail.

    Brian