IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] FYI: est-coaps registered (was: Re: Discovery of proxy/registrar insufficient (GRASP and) more).

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 07 May 2022 22:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 2CDB7C147930 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 May 2022 15:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.878
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.878 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NO_DNS_FOR_FROM=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IAUPg7t3VV5L for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 May 2022 15:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8443C14F725 for <anima@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 May 2022 15:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6762638C86; Sat, 7 May 2022 18:46:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id O8Dh0tElhiGC; Sat, 7 May 2022 18:46:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [172.30.2.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F5F38C78; Sat, 7 May 2022 18:46:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5207B22E; Sat, 7 May 2022 18:32:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, anima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <YnQ9odb1fVakhs4E@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <YlWUA7xhMU2XtJsz@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <388791.1649870361@dooku> <Ymc57cpieDGAcn1X@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <8866.1651512153@localhost> <YnLVDjRUP/ZrT4kd@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <14843.1651770972@localhost> <YnQ9odb1fVakhs4E@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 18:32:57 -0400
Message-ID: <16752.1651962777@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/yA64pQKjmVh8DNygGUbesXnjMnU>
Subject: Re: [Anima] FYI: est-coaps registered (was: Re: Discovery of proxy/registrar insufficient (GRASP and) more).
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Sat, 07 May 2022 22:33:06 -0000

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
    >> I'm not sure that I agree with the name "est-coaps", as I think it's still
    >> "est" with a transport of CoAP/UDP.

    > a) I think you're logically right, but practically we do not have any actual
    > formal service specification agnostic to transport for that abstract EST,
    > such as a TAP-like service interface definition. We only have stuff in
    > rfc9148 and ANIMA cBRSKI draft that reads: "this does the same as XXX
    > in RFC7030/RFC8995".

I thought in DNS-SD, one would ask for _est._udp.local?

    > b) I was just looking at the openthread brski code, and it would be interesting
    > to see how far one could get with actual code and a set of API functions
    > shared bteween BRSKI/cBRSKI..

I haven't read that code due to unclear IPR around the patents in Thread.

    > c) Can i circle that argument back to you and ask why we should actually
    > introduce brski.jp/brski.rjp if we already have brski-proxy and brski-registrar ?

I'm open to any name.

    > For unicast, what exactly is then the method to discover the URI of the
    > registrar (across >= 1 L3 hop) ? If there is some mandatory support
    > not only for unicast DNS (requests) but also automatically working

GRASP SRV.est?

    >> If not for the above, I think that we would not have split RFC9148 out.

    > What do you men with "split out" ?

est-coaps and constrained-voucher/brski could have been one document.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email