Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > I am confused about the reason for this discussion. It seems you are > trying to figure out how to minimize the impact of the insecure > multicast piece of GRASP, but in the context of ANIMA this question > would be irrelevant, because we are not doing any insecure GRASP in > BRSKY or ACP with current draft - the use of insecure GRASP was removed > in those drafts before Berlin because of the majority of the bootstrap > teams choice for DNS-SD/mDNS.
In ANIMA, agreed.
> Do you see some IoT context where you would use insecure GRASP instead
> of DNS-SD/mDNS, eg: in some IoT context ?
In 6tisch-secure-join, I specified a GRASP query (over TCP) between Join
Assistant and Registrar. It would be "secure" in the sense that it would not
be exposed to traffic from new nodes, only existing nodes.
The time sequence diagram I envisioned was:
JA Int-Nodes Registrar
---disc-----> -----disc----->
<----------- TCP M_END-------- new TCP
------ QUERY ---M_REQ_NEG----> same TCP
<----- REPLY ---M_END--------- same TCP
However, I think that we will have to replace the GRASP query with something
else, maybe just a CoAP request, as the TCP for GRASP is rather too much for
some.. To be discussed.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
