Dear WG
We only had little discussion about these drafts during the adoption call. Bu
we also had
no concerns of adopting the drafts, but only support (and another +1 from me as
an individual,
i just forgot to chime in earlier...).
Instead, Sheng pointed out that by adoption we also
will be able to better prioritize working on them. Likewise i would like to add
that
in discussions about ongoing BRSKI documents, it is a lot easier to potentialy
make them more pithy if we have a WG document to move over informational
considerations
too that might otherwise clobber up the spec documents.
So, i hereby want to announce the two documents as adopted by ANIMA WG with the
following
process guidelines:
- The decision whether to merge or not is not final. Given how the documents
are separate right now, it should be most easy to submit the -00 versions
separate, but merging can happen during WG work if the authors/WG so prefer
then
(e.g.: primarily i would think to eliminate possible duplication).
- I would not want to have even more scatter/gather documentation, so i think it
should be fair game to include other informational "considerations" about
masa and registrar
than "operational" - for example "implementation".
This was a conclusion i came to when first thinking "hey, we should call them
draft-ietf-anima-masa/brski-ops instead of considerations". But then i went to
a drafts cache and checked if/whet other docs had choosen that title and i
actually could not find any with -ops-, but i could find various
-considerations-
drafts for other technologies that where informational, expanding on the
base spec technology - without being specifically constrained to necessarily
e.g.: one topic such as "ops".
And of course, we just had some good exchanges on the list re. implementation
considerations especially re. constrained BRSKI/ANI, so if we feel there are
such considerations relevant to registrar/MASA, then we should not reject to
add them just by current title "ops" (but expand on the title).
- So, with all this said: Please submit
draft-ietf-anima-masa-considerations-00
draft-ietf-anima-registrar-considerations-00
- Also as a reminder: the authors are happy for other WEG members to join the
effort
as co-authors!
Thanks a lot
Toerless, for the chairs
On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 04:56:09PM +0200, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Dear ANIMA WG enthusiasts
>
> This email starts a three-week adoption call for drafts
>
> draft-richardson-anima-masa-considerations
> draft-richardson-anima-registrar-considerations
>
> The timeline is longer than the usual two weeks because it is two drafts
> (and we also want to ask for other adoptions in parallel).
>
> THese two drafts have been updated by the authors repeatedly following
> track with operational considerations related to ongoing BRSKI specification/
> deployment work:
>
> These two drafts collect operational considerations that often came out
> of work on working on BRSKI protocol specifications and implementation
> experience. Having them as official part of our work should help making it
> easier to avoid discussing operational considerations across other BRSKI
> specs in those specs.
>
> When you support this adoption, it would be good to know if you have an
> opinion whether these drafts should be merged ("BRSKI operational
> considerations"),
> or if they should stay separate (MASA vs Registrar).
>
> Another important aspect is target status of Best Current Practice or
> Informational. Please tell us your opinion.
>
> ---
> Toerless Eckert (for the chairs)
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
