My personal goal is that what we do in ANIMA is fully compatible with and ideally used in homenet. It would feel wrong to me to have an infrastructure that doesn't work in a homenet.
The security bootstrap is a good example of what we can achieve, with reasonable effort. To me, address management is a *use case* for the ANIMA work. Actually, we ought to be able to map *any* distributed address management method on top of the autonomic infrastructure that we're trying to create in ANIMA. We should also look to use HNCP in ANIMA, for sure (and the charter allows that!). But according to my intro statement, what ANIMA does would have to work across all architectures. We need to look more closely at this, and see whether 1) HNCP works as is , or 2) we can create an HNCP++ that can scale to SP/Ent, or 3) we need a different approach in ANIMA. As long as we do proper due diligence we should be able to settle on the best of those 3 options. So, personally I think we can work out a charter that resolves those conflicts, step by step. Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Anima [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon > Sent: 02 October 2014 13:38 > To: The IESG > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [Anima] Ted Lemon's Block on charter-ietf-anima-00-09: (with > BLOCK) > > Ted Lemon has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-anima-00-09: Block > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory > paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-anima/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > BLOCK: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The following exchange between Mark and Brian illustrates what I want out > of a BoF or External Review discussion: > > Mark: > > [...] > > In any case, It's not hard to extrapolate from here that in a year's time or > so, > if we continue on the current trajectory, homenet will have come up with > its own non-anima secure bootstrapping, and anima will have come up with > its own non-homenet distributed IPv6 prefix configuration. > > Brian: > > Which we should try to coordinate, since I see no reason in theory why > there can't be common underlying mechanisms between enterprise, carrier > and SOHO. But I don't want to hear in 2 years time that homenet is stuck > because anima hasn't met its milestones. > > Ted: > > Right now Homenet has a solution for the distributed configuration problem > with a spec and at least one WIP implementation, and is working > seriously on the mutual authentication problem. There may be some > synergy between what Homenet is trying to do and what ANIMA is trying to > do. If there is, it would be a big win to coordinate the two groups' > activities. It may also be that there is no synergy, and the efforts > are really effectively independent. > > Before the working group is chartered, I would like to see some clarity > reached about this. If there is synergy, I'd like there to be some > clear agreement about how to move forward so that ANIMA can achieve its > goals and Homenet can achieve its goals without either creating an interop > problem or stalling. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
