On 04/11/2016 17:43, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Toerless,
>
>
> On 11/3/16 8:54 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:18:06PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>> Hi Brian,
>>>
>>> Before we start imagining what the requirements in such situations are,
>>> are they at all written somewhere? Otherwise we run the risk of
>>> inventing a lot of mechanism to deal with a non-existent use case.
>> Not being Brian, but you being encumbered with more IETF/IAB
>> background, let me bring up the point that during anima formation,
>> our AD(s) where not too happy to delay progress in anima by
>> "requirements" documents or the much.
>
> Sure, and I don't think we should.
>>
>> - not sure if/how this might have changed
>> - written requireemnts from other WGs would be nice instead
>> of us (anima) having to come up with them
>> - Wasn't/isn't there some form of work in IETF bout emergency
>> or the like (911)... drawing a blank here, but maybe those
>> folks have requirements to draw from.
>
> The ECRIT WG did some work, and indeed that is where I went to look at
> some of this stuff. But I think they were quite focused on E911-type
> solutions and didn't go further.
Also, much of this topic is systems engineering, not protocol design.
However, at the protocol design level it seems apparent that autonomic
mechanisms *above all others* need to work when everything else is broken.
For many aspects that reduces to defining defaults that apply on a cold
start, but for security bootstrap in particular it also means defining
what happens when no external dependencies are possible. That does seem
to need pixie dust.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
