On 04/11/2016 17:43, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Toerless, > > > On 11/3/16 8:54 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:18:06PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: >>> Hi Brian, >>> >>> Before we start imagining what the requirements in such situations are, >>> are they at all written somewhere? Otherwise we run the risk of >>> inventing a lot of mechanism to deal with a non-existent use case. >> Not being Brian, but you being encumbered with more IETF/IAB >> background, let me bring up the point that during anima formation, >> our AD(s) where not too happy to delay progress in anima by >> "requirements" documents or the much. > > Sure, and I don't think we should. >> >> - not sure if/how this might have changed >> - written requireemnts from other WGs would be nice instead >> of us (anima) having to come up with them >> - Wasn't/isn't there some form of work in IETF bout emergency >> or the like (911)... drawing a blank here, but maybe those >> folks have requirements to draw from. > > The ECRIT WG did some work, and indeed that is where I went to look at > some of this stuff. But I think they were quite focused on E911-type > solutions and didn't go further.
Also, much of this topic is systems engineering, not protocol design. However, at the protocol design level it seems apparent that autonomic mechanisms *above all others* need to work when everything else is broken. For many aspects that reduces to defining defaults that apply on a cold start, but for security bootstrap in particular it also means defining what happens when no external dependencies are possible. That does seem to need pixie dust. Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima