Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: >> I have changed occurances of EST Server to "BRSKI Registrar", as I >> think that is more accurate.
> Not in draft-richardson-anima-state-for-joinrouter from my quick read.
No, that document is background and it is not intended for publication, and I
didn't change anything in it.
>> Did we really want to standardize the StateFUL join proxy?
> Uhmm... isn;t that what we're doing with BRSKI proper ? That's a
> stateful join proxy, right ? Aka: your question seems to be missing
> some more context (stndardize stateful join proxy for context
> XXXX... ?)
> Title: Constrained Join Proxy for Bootstrapping Protocols
> Document date: 2020-09-22
> Group: Individual Submission
The stateful method is same as BRSKI, but over CoAP, rather than HTTPS.
That's why I'm asking if it is at all useful to specify anything.
>> Is it really interesting or relevant? It seems trivial. If we are,
>> then we should contrast it. An important clue is that it does not
>> behave any differently, FROM THE PLEDGE point of view.
>>
>> The WG had expressed an interest in adopting this document, but the WG
>> chairs have not provided any clear guidance on where they we go.
> I thought we primarily had the issue of the named author having
> unfortunate issues to drive the document. If you want to take on the
> ditors helm for it, then the chairs will be happy to proactively see
> how to progress the document in the WG...
Peter, Panos and I are authors.
Yes, some of the authors had time constraints, but that's why we have more
than one author, isn't it?
>> This document could be merged into ietf-constrained-voucher, but I
>> think we made it a separate document because it is not needed on all
>> networks, just *constrained* multihop/MESH networks.
> Yes, we have some decisions to make wrt. how much to merge into fewer
> documents and how much to keep the solution definition modular.
> Given how we went through half a decade of probably too-big-documents
> in ANIMA, as an individual conributor i would err on the side of more
> smaller documents, but i guess as a WG chair i should just leave it to
> authors and rough consensus of the WG.
Well, constrained-voucher started out as being constrained-RFC8366,
with the intention of having a constrained-BRSKI document.
(Direction towards: more documents).
During that period, we managed to split of est-coaps-ace, which is in the
RFC-editor queue.
Then constrained-voucher ate up constrained-BRSKI, and now it is bigger.
I would say, that the WG should adopt the work based upon what things it
wants to solve, and then if content needs to be shifted around, merged,
split, etc. then the WG can decide that.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
