On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 10:48:25PM +0800, Sheng JIANG wrote:
> b) There are three parts of this draft (I have already seen some
> mistaken comments that cross-over these parts): an UDP-based solution, a
> COAP-based solution, a (potential) "link-local"GRASP (that is "non-IP
> discussion" section for now), also one more forth solutions: cGRASP relay,
> and fifth cGRASP/GRASP translator. They are targeting to different needs. I
> don't think we should or could take that much in a single draft. My simple
> idea for now is to be able to build a cGRASP-only ANIMA network, leaving the
> other parts later. Then, the question would be much simpler: the ANIMA WG
> would like to have an UDP-based solution or a COAP-based solution first? By
> putting the word "first" into the question, I mean we don't have to decide by
> now whether the second solution for other type of constrained devices is
> needed or not.
I think thats a little bit more limited to what i was suggesting in last email
to Michael:
- We need cGRASP whenever we have constrained devices that do not want to
implement TCP.
Such as most devices using CoAP and similar constrained devices
- In an arbitrary network, we could run cGRASP and GRASP in parallel, and
unconstrained
nodes would also need to support cGRASP if they need to talk to constrained
devices
(such as dual-stack IPv4/IPv6).
- If all nodes in a network can support cGRASP for all services, GRASP is not
needed anymore.
This would be very flexible, the limiting factor is to figure out if we can
have a congestion
control good enough to claim we can replace TCP. The one from the current draft
is not that,
and i fear the one from CoAP may also not be. But it's a good discuss with
ICCRG folks.
Cheers
toerless
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Sheng
>
>
>
> Toerless Eckert<[email protected]> On Friday, May
> 9, 2025, 23:53 wrote:
>
> Dear ANIMA WG enthusiasts
>
> This email starts a three-week adoption call for drafts
>
> draft-zhu-anima-lightweight-grasp
>
> The timeline is longer than the usual two weeks because we have other drafts
> up for adoption call in parallel.
>
> [ Note that the file name only includes "lightweight" to make the revision
> history easier,
> the text already calls it constrained GRASP (cGRASP). It would/should
> be renamed
> to "constrained" during adoption. ]
>
> This draft has undergone already several rounds of improvements and good
> discussions on the list and during WG meetings. However, investing more
> substantial
> work into this effort would be much better spent if it was clear that the WG
> agrees to carry this effort through, and hence this adoption call.
>
> Constrained GRASP is a necessarily element for implementation of an ANIMA ANI
> on
> constrained devices without requirements for TCP. It even more so would be
> required
> by ASA on devices without TCP. This includes potentially even
> devices without IP, such as in BLE networks.
>
> Constrained GRASP could have benefits also for non-constrained environements -
> it could eliminate the need for different protocol approaches for
> constrained/unconstrained
> ANI environments.
>
> Also, cGRASP could provide in-network flooding that could aleviate the need
> to encumber
> IGP protocols with additional, non-routing related information that needs to
> be flooded.
>
> So, please review, provide feedback, also if you are interested to help
> as author or contributor.
>
> And as always: If you don't like something, please explain.
>
> ---
> Toerless Eckert (for the chairs)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
--
---
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
