Claiming that ACP is not a normative reference for GRASP, since GRASP is
to run on ACP, seems a stretch.
Yes, if there is a library or API to call, that masks the knowledge.
But that could be said of a lot of normative references.
Put differently, it has seemed to me that I need to understand at least
the general shape of ACP operation in order to understand GRASP
operation. Which is the definition I am familair with for a normative
reference.
And making it normative couples the publication in the right order.
Which seems a good indiciation fo teh relationship.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/9/17 10:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/05/2017 13:58, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/05/2017 12:47, Martin Thomson wrote:
...
The main references for external security are
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane
which are indeed normative dependencies.
Both are informative.
Oh. Well, technically you don't need to know how they work in order
to implement GRASP. I'll do whatever the community wants, of course.
The reason that these two references are currently Informative
in GRASP is that a person coding the protocol has no need to
understand their details. (She will need to understand the ACP's
API, but that is not described in the ACP draft.) Therefore,
technically, although using the ACP is a SHOULD requirement in
GRASP, my understanding of the rules is that it is not a
normative reference.
The downside is that if we get into the RFC Editor queue, GRASP
could in theory be published before the ACP becomes an RFC.
That seems wrong.
Opinions, please!
Brian
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
