IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] minutes for anima-bootstrap design team meeting, 2016-08-16

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 16 August 2016 23:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E69B12B02C; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 yu2jWJ0z43RY; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99F8D12B00B; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 519B3200A5; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:58:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E85B6639DC; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:46:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: anima-bootstrap <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>, netconf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <3A795BB6-03A8-46B0-9EAD-1607427EE0CD@cisco.com>
References: <13187.1471375632@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <F612B414-2E38-46ED-AA75-025C7AD3318D@juniper.net> <3A795BB6-03A8-46B0-9EAD-1607427EE0CD@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:46:56 -0400
Message-ID: <7698.1471391216@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/bfUNSvympFOAIa7cOxNo3YQv_44>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] minutes for anima-bootstrap design team meeting, 2016-08-16
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 23:47:00 -0000

Max Pritikin (pritikin) <pritikin@cisco.com> wrote:
    > The common elements we’ve discussed are:

    > 1) some type information
    > 2) signature and/or encryption method
    > 3) validity period / nonce verification
    > 4) client device identity
    > 5) domain identity
    > 7) ability for extensibility(?)

    > There is also the encoding choices that need to be made. If it turns
    > out anima and netconf, for example, have entirely different
    > requirements for encoding (e.g. one requires json and the other cbor or
    > something) then there is a problem.

Okay, so if we are going to create a ownership voucher format, where will we
do it?   I don't think it's a question if it fits into the various charters,
so much as which one it should fit into.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email