Re: [Anima] IPIP in draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-07

On 12/07/2017 12:47, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > But the third locator sent by the Registrar indicates a meaningless > > link-local address, because it could come from many hops away. At first > > I thought this was a

Re: [Anima] IPIP in draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-07

Brian E Carpenter wrote: > But the third locator sent by the Registrar indicates a meaningless > link-local address, because it could come from many hops away. At first > I thought this was a confusion with the previous (proxy-to-pledge) > case, where

Re: [Anima] IPIP in draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-07

On 06/07/2017 11:05, Toerless Eckert wrote: > Brian, > > 1. I think the conclusions about IP-in-IP where that it should be in an > appendix >because it would not be MTI (Mandatory to implement). That makes sense. But the text is still a bit confusing because it doesn't make that clear in

Re: [Anima] IPIP in draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-07

Brian, 1. I think the conclusions about IP-in-IP where that it should be in an appendix because it would not be MTI (Mandatory to implement). 2./3. This was addressed in my shepherd review BRSKI where i folded in the information from your ani-objectives draft. See my other mail about the

Re: [Anima] IPIP in draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-07

Brian, I’m out for a couple of weeks but wanted to thank you for this note. Michael Richardson will likely have good comments but for now I’ve set a calendar event to catch up when I return and also have created a github issue to track this.

[Anima] IPIP in draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-07

Hi, I am still trying to figure out what you really want to say in sections 3.1.1. Proxy Discovery Protocol Details and 3.1.2. Registrar Discovery Protocol Details. 1. Why doesn't section 3.1.1 mention IP-in-IP (protocol 41)? Surely the pledge needs to know about it? 2. The description is