HI all,
All the suggestions by Michael and Esko have been introduced into the
document stored in github.
I think that this concludes the WGLC, unless I forgot some items.
Once they agree, a new vesrion -06 will be submitted to anima.
many thanks for their input,
Greetings,
Peter
Esko Dijk schreef op 2021-11-24 12:32:
Hello Sheng, all
I checked the new version against my review comments; and the following
comment is still open - this is where Peter and me disagree.
9.1: the registered resource types (rt) would typically use some
hierarchy in naming with dots to denote hierarchy. See the current
entries in the registry:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/core-parameters.xhtml#rt-link-target-att-value
[1]
For constrained-BRSKI we have defined "brski", "brski.vs", "brski.rv",
etc.
So to stay with existing conventions we could use such names. One
observation is that the Join Proxy in fact offers *all* BRSKI
functions
that the Registrar offers, but then proxied.
-> PvdS Here follows my rant.
There is no such thing as a convention for rt values.
My point on above is that the convention is that which has been used so
far and is not written down in any other RFC, draft, document, or
policy apart from the mere convention - what people register into the
CoRE parameters registry 'rt' attributes.
All rt values so far have used the hierarchy
core.* - CoRE WG types
ace.* - ACE WG types
brski.* - ANIMA WG types for BRSKI - not yet in the registry but
specified in draft-constrained-voucher.
oic.* - any types specified by OCF/OIC
fa.* - any types specified by Fairhair Alliance
Hence my request to comply to this convention, however undocumented it
is today. Any system architect would agree to that seeing the current
list.
For the current draft it may be solved by choosing e.g.
rt=brski.jp - for the Join Proxy's resource type (to advertise
join proxy support to Pledge)
rt=brski.rjp - for the Registrar's Join Proxy port (to advertise
Registrar's support for stateless join proxy protocol messages)
I was hoping anyone else in the WG could also comment here to avoid a
yes/no type discussion.
I'll also look at the other open comments soon.
best regards
Esko
From: Anima <anima-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Sheng Jiang
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 11:19
To: anima@ietf.org
Cc: anima-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Anima] checking on advancing
draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy
Hi, all,
This is a checking email to the WG collect the opinion whether
draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-05. Following our WGLC on -04
version, we asked the IoT directory review. Russ Housley provided it
and the authors have reported that they addressed the received
comments. If anyone has further comments, please feel free to raise
with details and suggestions. I will start my duty as document shepherd
next week.
Cheers,
Sheng
Links:
------
[1]
https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/core-parameters.xhtml#rt-link-target-att-value_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
