Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Toerless has instead written the M_FLOOD mechanism.
>> We started a thread a few weeks ago about this... what happened to it, I
>> would have to look. In either case, I would like to please discuss this
>> in the context of the BRSKI document, not the ACP.
> Sure. My understanding was discover/synchronize which is what
> I put in draft-carpenter-anima-ani-objectives-03 (and in
> the latest demo code if anyone cares:
> https://github.com/becarpenter/graspy/blob/master/brski-demo.pdf ).
> But this needs to be a firm consensus in the BRSKI team.
I did take a look at the code yesterday in the end, and I'll like run it
sometime soon, but I decided I didn't want to reverse engineer the spec from
the code :-)
>> o a synchronization objective option
> That implies that the registrar has something to announce to
> the proxy (such as "I support foobar and barfoo").
Do we have some preference for "AN_join_register" (and AN_Proxy and AN_ACP),
or is the AN_ prefix unwanted?
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
