On 06/07/2017 15:37, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 02:19:23PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Hi BRSKI authors,
>
> Can i still answer ?
>
> Inline. I only have an ACP author, WG chair and general bloviator hat
> though...
>
>> Is the following correct?
>>
>> Topology (ASC
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 02:19:23PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi BRSKI authors,
Can i still answer ?
Inline. I only have an ACP author, WG chair and general bloviator hat though...
> Is the following correct?
>
> Topology (ASCII art):
>___
>
Hi BRSKI authors,
Is the following correct?
Topology (ASCII art):
___
| REGISTRAR |
|___|
|Ar
|
...
(ACP)
(
On 06/07/2017 11:05, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Brian,
>
> 1. I think the conclusions about IP-in-IP where that it should be in an
> appendix
>because it would not be MTI (Mandatory to implement).
That makes sense. But the text is still a bit confusing because it doesn't make
that
clear in t
On 06/07/2017 11:13, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 12:23:13PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Toerless,
>>
>>> I actually expanded on the text to represent the whole M_FLOOD message
>>> format
>>> because i always found it highly irritating having to switch between the
>>> ta
I can think of several use cases where such a capability would be useful.
One such use case is documented in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-sla-violation-detection-10.
This concerns a use case to coordinate service level measurements among nodes
in a network. To come
Artur: pubsub and object store seem to be (to me) two hot buzzwords, but i am
not
aware (ENOCYCLES) what the IETF is currently doing about those. It would
certainly
be interesting for the ANIMA-WG to see proposals of work in the area with good
motivation why this work would be particularily be su
On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 12:23:13PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Toerless,
>
> > I actually expanded on the text to represent the whole M_FLOOD message
> > format
> > because i always found it highly irritating having to switch between the
> > taget draft (ACP etc.) and the GRASP draft to rea
Brian,
1. I think the conclusions about IP-in-IP where that it should be in an appendix
because it would not be MTI (Mandatory to implement).
2./3. This was addressed in my shepherd review BRSKI where i folded in the
information from
your ani-objectives draft. See my other mail about the st
Just FYI:
I started with the authors a shepherd review for subject draft, shortly before
-06
was finished. Alas, we've not been able to merge all the work of reviewing that
back into the latest pusblished version -07 primarily because that one primarily
focussed on getting inline with the voucher
Brian, I’m out for a couple of weeks but wanted to thank you for this note.
Michael Richardson will likely have good comments but for now I’ve set a
calendar event to catch up when I return and also have created a github issue
to track this.
https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/
11 matches
Mail list logo
