> 6.5.1. Discovery
>
> The Pledge discovers an IP address and port number that connects to
> the Registrar (possibly via a Join Proxy), and it establishes a DTLS
> connection.
This is very terse and possibly not completely correct.
How about:
The Pledge discovers an IP address and UDP port number which together allow
the
pledge to establish a DTLS connection to the Registrar, directly via a UDP
port of the Registrar or via a UDP port of a BRSKI-DTLS Join Proxy.
Is this a correct expansion ?
But the discovery itself is described in
draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy,
right ? E.g.: it could involve either directly discovering brski.rjp if there
is no join proxy or discoverin brski.jp if there is a join proxy. True ?
Would be good to at least provide an appropriate pointer that describes this.
And
i am not sure that draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy actually describes
how
a pledge would use either brski.jp or brski.rjp... ?
> No further discovery of hosts or port numbers is required, but a
beyond the discovery described in the prior paragraph ? Would suggest to
either remove this part of the sentence or add more details. As it stands it
is like be inserting into this email: It is not required to send toerless
chocolade.
(huh, why the heck does toerless mention this - what other cases are there
where toerless would actuallt expect chocoade. why does he mention it.. ?)
> pledge that can do more than one kind of enrollment
> (future work offers protocols other than [I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est]),
> then a pledge may need to use CoAP Discovery to determine what other
> protocols are
> available.
If the solultion os CoAP Discovery, then it seems the problem should maybe also
be rewritten to "pledge that can do more than one kind of enrollment mechanism
using CoAP".
I of course would equally be worried about a pledge that could not ONLY do CoAP
based enrolments but also other enrollments, for which CoAP discovery would not
help, so when you open the box of alternative pandoras, i wonder why you
explicitly
only discuss CoAP discovery. Some explanation might help for the text to avoid
raising questions it doesn't answer.
> A Pledge that only supports the EST-coaps enrollment method SHOULD
> NOT use discovery for BRSKI resources. It is more efficient to just
Confused. Do i translate this correctly to say "do not use brski.jp/brski.rjp
discovery
from anima-constrained-join-proxy" ?
Cheers
Toerless
> try the supported enrollment method via the well-known BRSKI/EST-
> coaps resources. This also avoids the Pledge doing any CoRE Link
> Format parsing, which is specified in [I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est],
> Section 4.1.
>
--
---
t...@cs.fau.de
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
