>If that's the case, we are on the wrong track. Should we be discussing >signing GRASP objectives, rather than messages?
Agreed. We can work on a mechanism that can sign objectives first. Later, if there were use cases that signed objectives were not sufficient, we can define a flood message. Sheng On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 07:02, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23-Aug-22 21:56, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > > Agreed. My opininion is that the mandatory-to-verify is not at the > > level of the flood-message, but at the objective definition level. > > If that's the case, we are on the wrong track. Should we be discussing > signing GRASP objectives, rather than messages? > > In many ways, that would be much easier to design and retro-fit. > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > -- Sheng Jiang
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
