On 23/05/2017 21:06, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
>> On 23 May 2017, at 04:57, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Just cherry-picking a COMMENT point that does need some thinking:
>>
>>> The CBOR definition has constants for IP_PROTO_TCP and IP_PROTO_UDP, but
>>> no way to register additional values with IANA. This does not seem
>>> future-proof.
>>
>> This is a tricky point. The values are of course already IANA values from
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml
>> If we wanted to add, say, SCTP that would be straightforward enough, without
>> bothering IANA.
>>
>> But what if we wanted to specify, say, HTTP or QUIC or anything else that
>> doesn't run directly over IP?
>>
>> I think that's a much bigger problem than just GRASP. So I personally prefer
>> to leave it alone for now. If the Transport Area has an answer, that
>> would be great.
>
> Can you at least establish an IANA registry?
My concern is that this may turn out to be a much broader problem: how
do we express that some upper layer protocol wants to run over a variety of
"transport" layers, some of which are traditional transport-over-IP
and some of which are transport-over-UDP or whatever. Yes, maybe there
should be a registry for that, but it would definitely not be specific
to GRASP. I'd really like to hear some Transport Area thinking on that.
(And meanwhile I'd like to get GRASP out the door too ;-)
Brian
>
>> Regards
>> Brian
>>
>>> On 23/05/2017 10:40, Adam Roach wrote:
>>> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12: No Objection
>>>
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-grasp/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> The document includes a couple of instances of "reasonable" in normative
>>> statements (e.g., "reasonable timeout"). I would strongly recommend
>>> having specific recommendations in the document where this happens.
>>>
>>> The CBOR definition has constants for IP_PROTO_TCP and IP_PROTO_UDP, but
>>> no way to register additional values with IANA. This does not seem
>>> future-proof.
>>>
>>> Section 3.8.4 talks about behavior when a node has a "globally unique
>>> address," but provides no guidance for detecting this. Are nodes expected
>>> to check for link-local, zeroconf, RFC 1918, and RFC 6598 addresses? Any
>>> others?
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
