Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > I always think of objectives as services, which would make > "XXX_registrar" the right word - it does not prescribe what > to do with the service: ignore, consume(join), buy-stock, resell, attack...
> "objective" to me always implies an action, which i think is why
> "XXX_join_registrar" was preferred choosen ?
We used the term "registrar" as the short form of Join Registrar/Coordinator.
After joining, it could be there are other registrars that can be reached to
renew certificates. Those registrars do not necessarily have to do all of
the EST work with the MASA, etc.
I don't care if it's called XXX_join_registrar or whatever.
I do insist quite strongly that it be described in the BRSKI document.
> I would like XXX = ACP because XXX = AN seems to imply the network is
> autonomic, which i think by definition it is not unless we have intent
;-P.
> XXX = ANI would also be wrong if for example we combine ACP with Netconf
> Zero Touch and only offer EST-renew but not BRSKI-enroll.
I don't care which name.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
