On 21/09/2017 05:07, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Thanks, Brian
>
> a) i will fix the ABNF with next update (for Shengs review).
Great.
> b) Given the order of likely last calls, i will suggest in the bootstrap
> meeting that we
> define the AN_Registrar objective authoritatively in ACP and BRSKI adds to
> it the
> "BRSKI" method. BRSKI already should have no issue having ACP as normative
> reference.
> Lets see how that discussion goes.
Works for me. Just decide whether you want AN_registrar or AN_join_registrar.
> c) Given my ABNF/CDDL dyslexia, would you mind to propose a correct CDDL for
> the
> objective-value structure to include the TTL and method, eg: fixup the
> following:
>
>>> objective-value = [ sender-ttl, method-list [, future-extensions]* ]
>>> method-list = [ method ]*1
>>> methd = BRSKI-TLS | EST-TLS | ...
>>> sender-ttl = NUM
I would go for this:
objective-value = [ sender-ttl, method-list, *[ future-extensions ] ]
method-list = [ +method ]
method = "BRSKI-TLS" / "EST-TLS"
sender-ttl = 0..255
future-extensions = any
The "+" prefix means 1 or more in CDDL and "*" means zero or more.
The commas in lists like [+method] are implied. (I checked
this fragment with the CDDL tool.)
I used strings for the method for simplicity; if you want to save a few
bytes you could use symbols but then they have to be assigned values like
BRSKI-TLS = 0
EST-TLS = 1
and you end up with another IANA registry in your life.
Regards
Brian
> If we do not get further feedback from the WG supporting my simple TTL=255
> approach,
> i would rather go with this structure approach, so that we can let the TTL
> disussion
> take its natural course (figure out it should be 255 over 10 years ;-P).
> Primarily,
> because i like the idea to show off a bit the flexiblity of GRASP for the
> objective
> value being a structure. ANd because it would be a good reference for
> further objectives
> where we want to discover/select closest instance (and we didn't include
> this into the
> GRASP document proper).
>
> Cheers
> Toerless
>
>>> (pretty sure i didn't get the CBOR template not right, but i am sure you
>>> get the idea)
>>
>> Not only do I get the idea, I tested it out many months ago; actually after
>> the
>> discussions in Berlin, I think. In my Pythonic world it was very easy, but
>> it is
>> indeed a bit more complicated than the 255-N method.
>>
>>>
>>> That way, the recipient can compare sender-ttl with the TTL of the received
>>> objective
>>> and threeby figue out which one is closest.
>>>
>>> I fine either way. I just tried to go for the most simple, logical option.
>>
>> Right, so the question for the WG (are you all listening?) is whether we
>> want to defend the value of the loop count in limiting propagation of
>> multicast
>> messages. (Remember that it has another role in negotiation sessions, where
>> it really is a loop-prevention counter.)
>>
>> I will note that in testing on looped topologies I have seen looped
>> multicasts
>> dropped because of the session ID; theoretically that is sufficient, and the
>> loop count is logically redundant.
>>
>> Otherwise, me happy.
>>
>> Thanks again for all the work,
>>
>> Brian
>
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
