Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: >> Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 1. The GRASP specification of 4.1.1 should only describe what is required >> > and valid for the standard of GRASP objective, which is the TCP proxy. >> >> > Appendix C proxy option is not full/formally worked out, thats why >> > its in an appendix. If the authors want to propose a formal GRASP >> >> It's not mandatory to implement, which is why it got pushed to the appendix. >> If it wasn't worked out, then it would be removed.
> Ok. *sigh*. I guess i didn't quite get that. So, if we want to make
> GRASP in BRSKI work correctly for IPinIP instead of just making it
> sugestive, there are a bunch of fixes necessary.
I just don't see them.
I can't see any protocol changes necessary, and I can't understand how
the GRASP definition can change unless you want to re-open GRASP and create
an IANA registry on transport-proto.
> You didn't like the idea of using
> objective-value strings
> to identify the proxy method. But the fix i suggested also fixed other
GRASP
> details.
As far as I understood, you seem to be asking us to invent a new protocol
that is not GRASP M_FLOOD, but looks almost, but not quite like it because
the CDDL syntax differs slightly.
> a) Insert after:
> | A proxy uses the DULL GRASP M_FLOOD mechanism to announce itself.
> | This announcement can be within the same message as the ACP
> | announcement detailed in [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane].
> The optional IPinIP proxy as described in Appendix C requires
> the following extension to the syntax of [GRASP]:
We are removing Appendix C.
The document will go forward with NAT66 being the only described protocol for
the Join Proxy.
--
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
