Hi Brian, Thank you for your two proposals.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 11:07 PM > Hi, > > I am mainly OK with this draft, but I see two sentences that bother me: > > At the end of section 6.1.1: > > >> Defining discovery extensions is out of scope of this document. This may > >> be > provided in [I-D.ietf-anima-brski-discovery]. > > > At the beginning of section 6.1.2: > > >> A more general discovery mechanism, also supporting GRASP besides DNS- > SD with mDNS, may be provided in [I-D.ietf-anima-brski-discovery]. > > I don't understand the words "may be provided". The reference is listed as > Informative, but it isn't clear to me what "may" means, since it is an > ambiguous > word in English. Does it mean that the authors of brski-discovery haven't > decided > yet, that the mechanisms defined in brski-discovery are OPTIONAL, or something > else? [stf] We included the reference to BRSKI-discovery at a very early point of discussing the new draft. Therefore we wrote "may". But you are correct with the proposals you made below, it does not sound vague so I would simply take your proposals over in BRSKI-PRM. I added this for traceability as issue #134 > > Possibly these two rewrites are what the authors intended to say: > > Defining discovery extensions is out of scope of this document. For further > discussion, see [I-D.ietf-anima-brski-discovery]. > > A more general discovery mechanism, also supporting GRASP besides DNS-SD > with mDNS, is discussed in [I-D.ietf-anima-brski-discovery]. > > I also wonder whether the Informative reference is correct, since > brski-discovery is > also standards track. Do we really want brski-prm to be published with the > reference pointing to an I-D rather than to an RFC? [stf] Regarding BRSKI-discovery being an informative reference, BRSKI-PRM does not depend on the functionality defined in BRSKI-discovery, as it utilizes the mDNS approach already applied in BRSKI. BRSKI-discovery enhances the capability detection of registrars and thus improves detecting the registrar matching the pledges functionality instead of trial and error. Therefore I would leave it as informative reference. Best regards Steffen > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 14-Aug-24 20:10, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > [resending, recipient list got messed up, sorry] > > > > Dear ANIMA-WG > > > > I am hereby want to do a lightweight last call to the WG before moving > > draft-ietf- > anima-brski-prm-14 to our AD, Mahesh. > > > > draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-06 successfully finished WGLC in early 2023. > > The editorial feedback from the WG lead to updates finished around > > draft-ietf- > anima-brski-prm-11. > > Afterwards, Matthias Kovatsch did a very thorough shepherd review > > whose editorial feedback was incorporated up to the curent version, > > draft-ietf- > anima-brski-prm-14. > > > > I am positive that all those who did provide feedback during WGLC did > > check that their feedback was correctly addressed, i know mine and > > Matthias (Shepherds) feedback has been addressed. Likewise, testing > > with prototypes has successfully been done since WGLC. > > > > Neither WGLC feedback nor shepherd review did introduce any functional > > changes to the protocol, but of course, the amount of restructuring > > and and editorial improvements to the text is substantial, and this is why > > Mahesh > asked us at IETF120 to check before taking over. > > > > Therefore i would like to give the WG a last opportunity to raise issues. > > If no substantial issues are raised, i will pass on the draft to our AD on > 08/23/2024 (end of next week). > > > > Thank you so much to everybody who helped to create this work! > > > > Toerless - for the chairs. > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 04:20:05PM +0000, Fries, Steffen wrote: > >> Hi Sheng, > >> > >> I will provide an updated version by tomorrow, incorporating the proposed > changes. > >> > >> Best regards > >> Steffen > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Sheng Jiang <[email protected]> > >>> Sent: Montag, 20. Februar 2023 04:42 > >>> To: anima <[email protected]>; Toerless Eckert <[email protected]>; > >>> anima-chairs <[email protected]>; draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm > >>> <draft-ietf-anima-brski- [email protected]>; ietf <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: ietf <[email protected]> > >>> Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-06, ends Feb. 15th, > >>> 2023 > >>> > >>> During the WGLC period, this drafts has received no objections, but > comments. > >>> Therefore, the chairs would draw on a passed conclusion . The WG > >>> discussed the authors' suggestion that move the YANG components of > >>> this to rfc8366bis and reach the consensus to respect the authors' > >>> choice. The authors please submit an update version. Then, the document > shepherd can move it forward. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> -------------- > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Sheng Jiang > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Dear ANIMAers, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> This message starts the two-week (*) ANIMA Working Group Last Call > >>>> to > >>> advance draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-06, which specifies enhancements > >>> to BRSKI > >>> (RFC8995) to facilitate bootstrapping in domains featuring no or > >>> only time limited connectivity between a pledge and the domain > >>> registrar. This document's intended status is Standards Track. At > >>> present, there is no IPR filed against this document. This document > >>> has been ANIMA WG document since October, 2021 and has received a > >>> lot of feedback from the WG and work from its authors. The authors > >>> therefore think is ready for WGLC. Please send your comments by Feb. > >>> 15th 2023. If you do not feel this document should advance, please > >>> state your reasons why. Matthias Kovatsch is the assgined > document shepherd. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Sheng > >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Anima mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
