Re: [Anima] Shepherd review draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-09

Toerless Eckert wrote: > 1.2) Terminology: > a) vendor vs. manufacturer. > The document uses 48 times "vendor" and 13 times "manufacturer". Please > revisit this: If there is a clear reason when/why to use vendor and when/why > to use the term

Re: [Anima] Technical comments on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-09

Much thanks for Michael Richardson for putting these diffs together. Comments inline, > On Feb 14, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > tl:dr: https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/pull/41 > >

Re: [Anima] Technical comments on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-09

William Atwood wrote: > As a result of trying to understand (and then to model) the protocol > flow for BRSKI, I have made a review of Bill also did an extensive grammar review, which was invaluable. The URL: https://goo.gl/pXNghv now shows all the changes

Re: [Anima] Technical comments on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-09

tl:dr: https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/pull/41 https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-10=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/bill-atwood-comments/dtbootstrap-anima-keyinfra.txt or: https://goo.gl/pXNghv

Re: [Anima] BRSKI over 802.11

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 02:08:20PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Nancy mentioned other 802.11 options beside SSID, so maybe we should > > gate a decision to adopt any such work to the WG having sufficient > > understanding of what the existing options in 802.11 are that > >

Re: [Anima] BRSKI over 802.11

Toerless Eckert wrote: > I would prefer for any work in this space to happen in > followup document(s), not in BRSKI itself. I agree completely. I wasn't imagining putting it into the current document. > I think anything done in ANIMA should purely be describing

Re: [Anima] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-10.txt

Benoit Claise wrote: > The tooling can't extract the YANG modules. > This issue comes from: > * > You should remove "yang/" I'll fix that! We moved files around in our repo and didn't realize it would impact here. > Also, complete the CODE BEGINS here

Re: [Anima] BRSKI over 802.11

Hi Toerless, On this point: On 14.02.18 17:56, Toerless Eckert wrote: > Aka: selecting the best SSID in face of competing offers > multiple or single AP is the type of work i think we should > give some tthought to. Ideally something extensible > where we can in the first spec get away with a

Re: [Anima] BRSKI over 802.11

WG-chair: I would prefer for any work in this space to happen in followup document(s), not in BRSKI itself. I think anything done in ANIMA should purely be describing mechanisms to leverage unmodified existing 802.11 mechanisms and ideally we find some existing work that also built some form of

[Anima] Fwd: [nmrg] RFC 8316 on Autonomic Networking Use Case for Distributed Detection of Service Level Agreement (SLA) Violations

-- Forwarded message - From: Date: ter, 13 de fev de 2018 23:12 Subject: [nmrg] RFC 8316 on Autonomic Networking Use Case for Distributed Detection of Service Level Agreement (SLA) Violations To: , , <

Re: [Anima] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-10.txt

Hi Michael, The tooling can't extract the YANG modules. This issue comes from: You should remove "yang/" Also, complete the CODE BEGINS here under: module ietf-mud-brski-masa { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-mud-brski-masa"; prefix

Re: [Anima] Shepherd review draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-09

Hi Toerless, thanks for this reminder about terminology in keyinfra. I have made several attempts at explaining the authors the possible misunderstandings on terminology. Let's hope your input helps. I will look at your other comments later this week. Peter b) Key infrastructure There