Say "secure overlay" to emphasise the point, but yes. The draft I submitted yesterday "describes a simple method of forming an ACP immediately above the transport layer" which is indeed precisely a secure overlay.
Regards Brian On 30-Jun-20 00:45, William Atwood wrote: > Is "overlay" the right word? > > I agree that it is physically in-band, and virtually out-of-band. Isn't > that the definition of "overlay"? > > Bill > > On 2020-06-28 11:02 p.m., Michael Richardson wrote: >> Attention This email originates from outside the concordia.ca domain. // >> Ce courriel provient de l'exterieur du domaine de concordia.ca >> On 2020-06-23 10:31 p.m., [email protected] wrote: >>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>> >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-25 >> >> >> yes, I read the diffs :-) >> >> - This document describes a modular design for a self-forming, self- >> - managing and self-protecting ACP, which is a virtual in-band network >> - designed to be as independent as possible of configuration, >> >> + This document describes a modular design for a self-forming, self- >> + managing and self-protecting ACP, which is a virtual out-of-band >> + network designed to be as independent as possible of configuration, >> >> This change from being a virtual in-band network to a virtual >> out-of-band network must have been in response to some comments... It >> seems a big change in some ways. I guess it makes this text consistent >> with the abstract which has said virtual out-of-band for awhile now. >> >> But, I do have to wonder if we are creating confusion by claiming that >> this is an out-of-band mechanism, even though it's really an in-band >> mechanism. It's just virtually-out. >> >> I actually do want to start a bike-shed issue here? >> Are we describing ourself wrong? Maybe there is some portmanteau that >> would be more accurate? I think that the above sentence is essentially >> the elevator pitch for all of ANIMA. >> >> >> There is also a bunch of other text that has been added to the >> Introduction, which I think confuses more than it enlightens. >> Or at least needs a better copy-edit. >> >> A number of other new sections (9.4..) need a copy-edit to fix some >> missing words. I will try to help Toerless with that via github. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Anima mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima >> > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
