On 19/01/2018 06:34, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> > I just posted -08:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-08.txt
>
> > I have modified the verbage in -08 according to your suggestions.
>
> > A) GACP
>
> > Section 1.3 now introduces the four core design constraints of a
> > generic ACP (GACP) (VRF isolation, IPv6 only, NOC connectivity and
> > Group Security) which are the basis for the (existing/unchanged)
> > discussion in the document.
>
> > The rest of the document has no semantic/content changes just textual
> > changes for ACP -> GACP. There are two places where the text still
> > refers to ACP specific examples and that is accordingly highlighted.
>
> Does that change ACP->GACP have to go across all documents?
I don't think so. This does relate to one of the changes made to the GRASP
draft after IESG review, where we made it clear that *the* ACP was the
preferred substrate, but not the only possible substrate:
A GRASP implementation will be part of the Autonomic Networking
Infrastructure (ANI) in an autonomic node, which must also provide an
appropriate security environment. In accordance with
[I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model], this SHOULD be the Autonomic
Control Plane (ACP) [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane].
...
GRASP does not specify transport security because it is meant to be
adapted to different environments. Every solution adopting GRASP
MUST specify a security and transport substrate used by GRASP in that
solution.
I don't think the "GACP" is any different, it's just a shorthand for the
same point. (Probably we should also mention "GACP" in the reference model
for consistency.)
Brian
>
> Could you:
> s/ 1.3. Leveraging a generalized autonomic control plane
> / 1.3. Leveraging a generalized autonomic control plane (GACP)/g
> ?
>
> I think not, as I understand Alvaro's comments:
>
> >> Hmmm???. I see your point, but that is not what the document says.
> >> Not only does it specifically point at the ACP anima draft ("ACP as
> >> defined in [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]???), but it is
> >> hard to ignore the work done in the WG.
> >>
> >> I think that if you clearly explained the characterization of *an
> >> autonomic control plane* and mention *the ACP*
> >> [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane] as an example of that, then
> >> we would be ok. Please then also call it something else (GACP =
> >> Generic/Generalized, or anything else that clearly makes people think
> >> you???re not explicitly talking about *the ACP*).
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
