Re: [Anima] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

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

On 03/08/2018 12:37, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 02:09:08PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 02/08/2018 12:30, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> ....
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ....
>>> In particular, in its current form, it's not clear to me why this document
>>> is targeting the standards-track -- there are lots of places where
>>> determinations of what works best or how to do some things is left for
>>> future work.
>>
>> We had no choice, because this is a normative reference for GRASP, since
>> GRASP requires at least one secure transport substrate.
> 
> That seems like a pretty specious argument -- it assumes as a prior that
> GRASP also must be standards-track, and ignores the well-established
> downref process.

Sorry, I should indeed have said that this was always the working group
model, that the three infrastructure documents (GRASP, ACP and BRSKI)
should be standards track. That's why GRASP is in MISSREF state;
naturally I wouldn't (as GRASP editor) object to a downref instead,
but it's not ideal.

> On the other hand, the ANIMA milestones do say to "submit autonomic
> control plane solution to the IESG (Standards Track)".  (The charter itself
> does not say anything about document status.)  On the gripping hand, the
> IESG does have the authority to determine the track on which a document is
> published.
> 
>> It's true, I think, that the draft could do a better job of
>> separating the well-defined normative requirements from the issues
>> that are to a considerable extent implementation-dependent. But I
> 
> But I'd prefer to see these improvements made than debate the above.

Certainly. But not being a co-author, that's not my choice to make.
 
>> don't agree that it's at the Experimental stage, because it has a
>> pedigree in proprietary code. Please consider that it is only
>> asking for *Proposed* Standard status.
> 
> Could you enlighten me about this pedigree?  Is it just the Autonomic
> Networking project from Cisco, or is there more (or even indepnedent
> implementations)?

I think the authors should answer that one.

>>> I also think the document needs to be more clear about what security
>>> properties it does or does not intend to provide: 
>>
>> I agree that this could be more clearly stated. By implication,
>> it's this:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15#section-2.5.1
> 
> Thanks, that's a great start.

The authors are of course most welcome to borrow it ;-)

    Brian