I assume people have looked at draft-pritikin-coap-bootstrap. I don't see any discrepancy between that and Eliot's message.
Brian On 04/08/2016 04:33, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > > As I understqnd it, low power devices are usually viewed as having > limited > > capabilities. > > Thus, I would normally expect to see their autonomic functions handled > > by a > > proxy, much as a COAP gateway provides connectivity to the rest of the > > Internet for such devices. > > > If that is the case, then I would not expect to run GRASP or ANIMA > > bootstrap on the low end devices, but rather on the proxy. > > The goal is not to run GRASP or ACP on the low-end devices (the lightbulbs), > but rather to be able to use common infrastructure for bootstrapping. > > > What am I missing? > > It's not about running GRASP over an ACP between lightbulbs, it's about > enrollment/bootstrap. It might be about running GRASP over an ACP > between lighting controllers, and that may well involve the proxies you > mention. > > (It's also worth making a comparison to what we consider "limited > capabilities" to what we had as control plane CPUs 20 years years ago) > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > Anima@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
