So, I guess you've arrived... below: On 12/11/2016 15:51, Michael Richardson wrote: > > 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.
I agree, GRASP is designed for autonomic nodes and I don't think we should promote it for other usage at the moment. Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
