IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] two EST question/suggestions

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 12 September 2017 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
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 ED21B1330DE for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 13:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 htmIOdI2o3C7 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 13:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 555F513239C for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 13:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2795; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1505248923; x=1506458523; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=tRXJQ45s462aQdsJN3WgKSUZtsqTXoUYJZXbWGjuGU8=; b=mykXv8v+5VltQT9hS4ggJX9arPAWVa0oYAb64PprGhzt7bZadANHnBFj HsBs+CzQAVs9ysDsZGos9OWM7wIctOanxAXSFDecA34UEO591SfccQx54 002OdWLLaW7b1pRMB7w4l4r0pCSI4E5cMI4jkqPrf17aVS0p0AWRMh6fu I=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CEBgCURbhZ/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBhD5uhB6LFZB6K5g6BwOFPgKFBhUBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUYAQEBAwEjZgsYKgICVwYBDAgBAYolCKxUgieLNAEBAQEBAQEDAQEBAQEBARIPgyuFYIJ9hGGDKYJhAQSgdIQ5giGNeItVhx2VL4E5NSKBDTIhCBwVh2c+ijwBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,384,1500940800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="654570147"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Sep 2017 20:42:01 +0000
Received: from [10.61.216.42] ([10.61.216.42]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8CKg02J020243; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 20:42:01 GMT
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, anima@ietf.org
References: <961.1504038708@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <BAA96F8A-C61E-4DE1-9837-7964A0E8B4A2@cisco.com> <2a1cf1e7-f668-cf76-d471-78585d7ad7ba@cisco.com> <8b165f89-3be1-c814-5a88-bf62f708972f@gmail.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <aa4a2a03-4c24-ed78-5da3-0a29e778dfef@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:42:03 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8b165f89-3be1-c814-5a88-bf62f708972f@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6aSmFnPPLUH9RwFvK2bN1UVFUhKFo0UHf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/qGrPJfC0FnYR1uMoJ-KUvYFT8zs>
Subject: Re: [Anima] two EST question/suggestions
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 20:42:05 -0000


On 9/12/17 10:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 13/09/2017 02:33, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> I agree a statement that HTTP2 etc is ok so long as it doesn’t change the possible client state machine…  ?
>> You need an MTI, and it should be the easiest and most compact thing to
>> implement.  While CoAP would be optimal, HTTP/1.1 is more than
>> sufficient, and the features in 2 in this case are not only unnecessary,
>> but undesirable overhead.
> I am a bit bothered by the assumption that all devices of interest can be assumed
> to include X, for whatever value of X we deem to be MTI. Or are you only
> intending MTI to apply at the server end?

Hmm.  Actually, I don't like my own text precisely for the reason you
state.  But I do think we don't want to create a plethora of choices. 
There is an interoperability issue here that has to be addressed.

>
> It seems to me that we want to minimise the requirements for low end pledge
> devices, and every item that we make mandatory works against that.
>
>     

Right, but we need to have something there.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email