Re: [Anima] Michael: IANA request for GRASP registry missing from BRSKI text

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Fri, 06 November 2020 23:48 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 D42F63A02BD for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 15:48:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, 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 vryXkN-mKu-H for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 15:48:39 -0800 (PST)
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 B018B3A02BC for <anima@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 15:48:39 -0800 (PST)
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 A3673548657; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 00:48:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id A02BB440059; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 00:48:34 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2020 00:48:34 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>, warren@kumari.net
Message-ID: <20201106234834.GE55210@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20201106162446.GB48249@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <27682.1604697321@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <27682.1604697321@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/kFtoAfgpCNxXcOQnOfunOREp_ls>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Michael: IANA request for GRASP registry missing from BRSKI text
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: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 23:48:42 -0000

Kiding aside: Who needs to take which action now ? 

On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 04:15:21PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
>     > Am i completeley confused, or did we miss until now the IANA request in BRSKI for
>     > the new entries AN_Proxy and AN_join_registrar ?
> 
> I dunno what happened.
> But, you are exactly right.
> Who to blame? when in doubt? clearly, BLAME CANADA.
> 
> It wasn't until my third reading of:
>   grasp-15, section 6, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15#section-6
> 
> that I saw that GRASP actually does create a _GRASP Objective Names Tables_.
> I was going to complain that there was no registry created, but it just
> didn't have it's own heading:
> 
>    GRASP Objective Names Table.  The values in this table are UTF-8
>    strings which MUST NOT include a colon (":"), according to
>    Section 2.10.1.  Future values MUST be assigned using the
>    Specification Required policy defined by [RFC8126].
> 
>    To assist expert review of a new objective, the specification should
>    include a precise description of the format of the new objective,
>    with sufficient explanation of its semantics to allow independent
>    implementations.  See Section 2.10.3 for more details.  If the new
>    objective is similar in name or purpose to a previously registered
>    objective, the specification should explain why a new objective is
>    justified.
> 
>     > I was just checking IANA actions for ACP and did not see these two in the GRASP
>     > registry:
> 
>     > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-44.txt
> 
>     > Not sure about the process, e.g.: if "specification required" (GRASP registry)
>     > mandates the IANA text in the BRSKI RFC... I fear it does ? If three is an easier
>     > way as having Warren approve another rev... ?
> 
> I think that the text has to go in.
> Warren needs to approve the change, and IANA needs to review, and then the
> text needs to go in now or at AUTH48, depending upon where the RPC really is.
> 
> I have version -45 ready to post, diffs are at:
> 
> I think that this is non-constroversial, does not require a WG LC, and can
> slide in at AUTH48, but as it required IANA review, it's better if it happens
> sooner.
> 
> It looks like the YANG is now 2-3 characters too long in places, so I've also
> rewrapped that.  The base64 in the examples will also need to be reflowed
> ick.
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-44&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/master/dtbootstrap-anima-keyinfra.txt
> 
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 



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