Re: [Anima] "virtual out-of-band" ... or some minor non-ACP-number comments on Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-25.txt

I still prefer the definition "virtual out of band". An "overlay" (secure or not) depends on correct configuration of the underlay. The ACP does NOT depend on configuration in the underlay, that is what makes it special. I haven't seen the definition "virtual out of band" anywhere else, and

Re: [Anima] Brian/anima: trust notion of ASA communications

On 08/02/2020 20:05, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 08-Feb-20 23:36, Michael H. Behringer wrote: Brian, I'm not sure I understand your phrase "the private key will be scattered around the autonomic domain." Are you suggesting to create a key pair for a role, and if several nodes have the

Re: [Anima] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-08: (with COMMENT)

On 25/10/2018 14:01, Alissa Cooper wrote: -- COMMENT: -- Since draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra is a normative reference in this document, IDevID seems

Re: [Anima] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-08: (with COMMENT)

On 25/10/2018 05:21, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: Hi, Brian, On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: Hi

Re: [Anima] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-08: (with COMMENT)

ctions is a different use than that. I will leave it to the authors to decide if that would be confusing to the target audience. Thanks! Ben. On Oct 25, 2018, at 3:43 AM, Michael H. Behringer wrote: Hi Ben, thanks for your review! Yes, we're a bit "verbose" with those topics. There was

Re: [Anima] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-08: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ben, thanks for your review! Yes, we're a bit "verbose" with those topics. There was a consistent worry all through our work to distinguish phase 1 and phase 2 work, and to not let phase 2 work creep into phase 1. So we probably erred on the more "explicit" wording, trying to make REALLY

[Anima] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-08.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach WG of the IETF. Title : A Reference Model for Autonomic Networking Authors : Michael H.

Re: [Anima] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-07

On 30/08/2018 04:06, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2018-08-29 22:39, Michael H. Behringer wrote: Christian, thanks for the review, my comments inline... On 26/08/2018 22:57, Brian E Carpenter wrote: (Ccs trimmed) Christian, Thanks for this careful review. I'll comment here on the larger

Re: [Anima] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-07

Christian, thanks for the review, my comments inline... On 26/08/2018 22:57, Brian E Carpenter wrote: (Ccs trimmed) Christian, Thanks for this careful review. I'll comment here on the larger issues: On 2018-08-27 04:03, Christian Hopps wrote: ... Minor Major Issues: - Virtualization is

Re: [Anima] Michael: Nit suggestion for draft-ietf-anima-reference-model

Hi Toerless, thanks for the feedback. No problem with me, I'll move contributors before acknowledgements (makes sense). Personally I have no problem adding email addresses behind contributors, will need to check with everybody which email address they want listed. Are other ID editors doing

Re: [Anima] Call for agenda ANIMA @ IETF 101, London

...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael H. Behringer Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 4:47 AM To: anima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Anima] Call for agenda ANIMA @ IETF 101, London Hi Sheng, Not sure we need a slot for the reference model. I guess it should now go to the IESG, right? Up to you. If we have time

Re: [Anima] Review comments//RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-05 - Respond by January 22nd, 2018

a quick update soon or addressing them together with the IESG review comments, which I am sure will have. Regards, Sheng -Original Message- From: Anima [mailto:anima-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael H. Behringer Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 9:10 PM To: Sheng Jiang <jian

Re: [Anima] Call for agenda ANIMA @ IETF 101, London

Hi Sheng, Not sure we need a slot for the reference model. I guess it should now go to the IESG, right? Up to you. If we have time, I could do a short 10 min update. I won't be in person in London, but can present remotely. Michael On 28/02/18 06:56, Sheng Jiang wrote: Hi, all anima, We

Re: [Anima] Review comments//RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-05 - Respond by January 22nd, 2018

On 18/01/18 09:59, Sheng Jiang wrote: Hi, authors of anima-reference-model, I have reviewed the draft as the document shepherd, see below comments. Overall, I feel this document is very useful and it is almost ready for be published. Please properly address my comments together with other

Re: [Anima] WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-05 - Respond by January 22nd, 2018

I guess I've made my point before, but just in case: I'm also co-author, and also think this doc is ready to move forward. Michael On 10/01/18 22:06, Jéferson Campos Nobre wrote: Dear Anima. I am also a co-author of this

Re: [Anima] Adoption call for draft-liu-anima-grasp-api-06, ends Dec. 12, 2017

I also support the adoption of this document. Michael On 29/11/2017 6:35 AM, Sheng Jiang wrote: During the IETF100, there was a consensus that draft-liu-anima-grasp-api is fully consistent with the current ANIMA charter, under the condition it intends to be an Informational document. After the

Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-05.txt

from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach WG of the IETF. Title : A Reference Model for Autonomic Networking Authors : Michael H. Behringer Brian

Re: [Anima] Reference draft: New Security Considerations Section

es on its usage." - Since it is a important exception, I think the usage rules should be replicated here instead of just using a reference to the GRASP I-D. Cheers. Jéferson Em qui, 12 de out de 2017 às 06:23, Michael H. Behringer <michael.h.behrin...@gmail.com <mailto:michael.h.behrin.

Re: [Anima] Reference draft: New Security Considerations Section

ad of just using a reference to the GRASP I-D. I respectfully disagree, this would add a lot of detail, and would make the section less readable. I think the reference is better here. Will push the changes onto the git repo in a minute. Michael Cheers. Jéferson Em qui, 12 de out

[Anima] Reference draft: New Security Considerations Section

As mentioned before, the Security Considerations section needed work. I have now restructured and to a large extent re-written that section. The main focus is on the fact that while AN is auto-protecting, in the case of a vulnerability, protocol design error, operational error, the attack

Re: [Anima] Reference draft, version 5

On 11/10/17 21:18, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 12/10/2017 02:47, Michael H. Behringer wrote: ...> It's finally up to the other drafts (ACP, BRSKI, etc) to specify what is MUST and SHOULD. Agreed. That's not to say that lower case must, should etc. are forbidden in an informational docum

Re: [Anima] Reference draft, version 5

Just incorporated the comments from Artur into the draft (on github for now), FYI: On 26/07/17 19:55, Artur Hecker wrote: Dear community, dear Authors, I reread the draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-04. I hope it's not arriving at an inappropriate moment, but please find some notes and

[Anima] Reference draft, version 5

ANIMA WG, I started to work on version -05 for the reference draft. As far as I recall, we only needed to work on the security considerations, then the document would be ready for WG last call. The github repo is up to date (thanks to Brian for

Re: [Anima] WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-03 - Respond by July 28, 2017

Hi Sheng, I'm not aware of any IPR relating to this document. Michael On 20/09/17 02:54, Sheng Jiang wrote: Hi, Toerless, Thanks for your hard and fruitful work. Giving the change mount from -03 version, which is the base for the first WGLC, I feel another WGLC is needed. I will launch a

Re: [Anima] Review draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-04

Thanks for your comments, Artur. I'm in the middle of vacations, but will incorporate your comments when back, in the next version! Brian, seen your response, too. Will catch up... Michael On 26/07/17 19:55, Artur Hecker wrote: Dear community, dear Authors, I reread the

[Anima] draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-04

As promised, here the new version of the reference model draft. I'll be submitting in a minute, the github repo already has it: https://github.com/mbehring/ANIMA-Reference-Model/blob/master/draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-04.txt. The diff is attached for easy consumption. As suggested by

Re: [Anima] Factory reset: Do we need two types?

to mention (and so far missing) is IMO that *only* a factory re-set can remove the LDevID, otherwise we may end up with stale state at enrollment time. I added that point in my new section. Please shout if you think I'm missing something. Michael On 11/03/2017 21:00, Michael Richardson wrote: