Re: [Gen-art] [Anima] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-06

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 17 August 2018 14:36 UTC

From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
cc: gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org, draft-ietf-anima-reference-model.all@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <153386283991.28744.9091243291268056328@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <153386283991.28744.9091243291268056328@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 10:36:09 -0400
Message-ID: <17752.1534516569@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/qPZAiEC_oaQWpnL-74wh2mP9EHc>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Anima] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-06
Precedence: list

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
    >     Does section 3.3.2 intend to mandate that devices have persistent
    > storage for the LDevID?  Or is it trying to say that on power cycle it
    > stays in Enrolled state if it retains its LDevID, but goes back to the
    > Factory default state if not?  (Given that folks have repeatedly said
    > that these may be low power devices, I think we need to be clear about
    > what we are requiring.)

*) Constrained devices are not, in general, in scope for the WG
*) Regardless, the LDevID needs to be persisted, and I agree we should say that.

    >     Section 5 starts by saying that the administrator does not have to
    > configure security.  In the very next paragraph it says that a PKI must
    > be in place.  That clearly requires configuring some security
    > properties.  Please reword.

The administrator has to have a PKI.  We considered making the PKI
auto-configuring, but we backed out of that as a hard requirement.
I agree that this text need to be clarified.

    >     Section 3.3.2 in defining when a device is in the Enrolled state
    > says that it in the Enrolled state if it has an LDevID.  As far as I
    > can tell, the added constraint is that it is not currently a member of
    > an ACP.  The text should include that.

Agreed.

    >     The third paragraph of section 6.1 refers to the Autonomic nodes
    > and the ASAs as "self-aware".  I do not know what meaning is being
    > ascribed to that phrase.  The usage does not seem to correspond to any
    > meaning I can understood.  Can we just remove the sentence?  (I suspect
    > that the intention is to lead to the fact that the functions can
    > advertise their capabilities, and negotiate them.  We don't need the
    > sentence as grounding for that.)

I think that the intent is to say that the ASA will have a model of itself.
I think that it would be better to say that.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [



--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

Attachment: signature.asc

[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-a… Joel Halpern
Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Toerless Eckert
Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Joel M. Halpern
Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Toerless Eckert
Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Joel M. Halpern
Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Michael H. Behringer
Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Joel Halpern Direct
Re: [Gen-art] [Anima] Genart last call review of … Michael Richardson
Re: [Gen-art] [Anima] Genart last call review of … Joel M. Halpern

Re: [Gen-art] [Anima] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-06

Attachment: signature.asc