Yao Kehan <[email protected]> wrote: KY> But I think it doesn39t necessarily depend on ACP. Can GRASP be KY> implemented decoupled from ACP? (Sorry that I have not closely followed KY> the progress of ANIMA.)
GRASP depends upon the ACP for security.
There has been interest to add an asymmetric authentication layer, and really
we need this.
There has also been interest in running it over CoAP, DTLS or TLS, but so
far, no proposals.
KY> It depends on implementation. In CATS metrics definition, there are
KY> three metric
KY> levels.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cats-metric-definition/
KY> The Level 0 (raw metrics) may contain many detailed compute and
KY> service metrics, expressed in floating points, whose size can be
KY> large.
RFC9439 seems to do ALTO over HTTP with raw JSON. I'm not seeing YANG or CDDL
explanations here. Please explain large. How many floats per forwading
platform? 100? 1000? 1e6?
KY> For simplification and routing-friendly(easy to converge, small
KY> overhead), implementers can also choose Level 1 or Level 2 normalized
KY> metrics, which can be represented in 1 to 10 usigned integer value,
KY> whose size can be very small.
It seems to me that if you have an ACP, you can easily fit your metrics into
GRASP directly, as CBOR. I don't think that you need grasp-distribution,
but maybe it helps if you find that you might repeat it.
Generally, I think of grasp-distrbution as a way to move and cache larger
artifacts (files) on a hop-by-hop basis.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
