Re: [Anima] Expressing RFC 9316 Intent Examples in ASSL

Hi Bill, Interesting work. A few questions: 1) Is ASSL in active use? A quick search suggests it has been fairly quiet in recent years. 2) Java as the target language seems distinctly old-fashioned. I quickly found a Java to Python converter (https://www.javainuse.com/java2py). Have you

Re: [Anima] WGLC for draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae-04, ends April 3rd, 2023

I have insufficient security expertise to review the details of this draft, but it seems to be complete and well written. Section 4.2 "Message Exchange" refers to a diagram stored on GitHub in PNG format. It's a nice diagram, but I think that it's a bad idea to embed a GitHub URL in an RFC.

Re: [Anima] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm

On 09-Mar-23 05:30, Matthias Kovatsch wrote: Dear Anima WG, co-chairs, and authors I started my shepherd review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm. I currently see the need for some restructuring to make the draft clearer to the reader and easier to implement. Hence my review is done as

Re: [Anima] New Version of draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd

Steffen, On 18-Jul-23 00:46, Fries, Steffen wrote: Hi, I've read the latest version of draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd-05 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd/ ), which has been updated just

Re: [Anima] New Version of draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd

On 26-Jul-23 09:06, Michael Richardson wrote: Brian E Carpenter wrote: > That makes sense, but it probably needs to be normatively specified, > which would avoid any need to change RFC 8995, except perhaps an > erratum to delete that "(list of)" wart. I di

Re: [Anima] New Version of draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd

On 26-Jul-23 01:07, Michael Richardson wrote: Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Yes, but you can map them in CBOR just as > draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd already describes. (Think JSON but code > CBOR.) My only real concern is how to extend the

Re: [Anima] New Version of draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd

On 27-Jul-23 01:44, Toerless Eckert wrote: DNS-SD TXT RR's are a sequenze of zero limited strings "key1=value1" ... "keyn=valuen" In my current grash/dsn-sd draft i have just proposed to encode this in CBOR with as little as possible changes, e.g.: [ "key1=value1", ... "keyn=valuen" ] You

Re: [Anima] New Version of draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd

: Michael Richardson Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 11:47 PM To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: Fries, Steffen (T CST) ; anima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Anima] New Version of draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I can't answer that, but note that the AN_Proxy and AN_join_regist

Re: [Anima] Esko: Re: Moving draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-06 forward

. Professional copy editors are paid to do it. Brian -Original Message- From: Brian E Carpenter Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 22:40 To: Esko Dijk ; Toerless Eckert ; Michael Richardson Cc: anima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Anima] Esko: Re: Moving draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-06 forward (we

Re: [Anima] Esko: Re: Moving draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-06 forward

(we can apply the lazy-fix policy and let IESG find them ;-) ) A bit off topic, but that is *not* the IESG's job. Unfortunately the IESG often wastes time on this rather than sending it on to the RFC Editor, whose job it is. I believe it's better for everybody if this is done by the authors.

Re: [Anima] New Version of draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd

On 02-Aug-23 14:22, Toerless Eckert wrote: On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 10:17:38AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 27-Jul-23 01:44, Toerless Eckert wrote: DNS-SD TXT RR's are a sequenze of zero limited strings "key1=value1" ... "keyn=valuen" In my current grash/dsn-

Re: [Anima] Moving draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-06 forward

Hi Sheng, I checked, and all the points in my review last November are covered. Thank you to the authors. Now draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs is a downref, which needs to be mentioned in the shepherd's write-up. Regards Brian On 16-Jun-23 15:16, Sheng Jiang wrote: Hi, Brian, Esko &

Re: [Anima] northbound/southbound U interface (Re: New Version Notification for draft-richardson-anima-registrar-considerations-07.txt)

The private keys from the Southbound interfaces SHOULD NOT be made available on the Northbound interfaces. This new sentence reads slightly strangely, since private keys must never be available anywhere! Sow what exactly SHOULD NOT be available to the North? Regards Brian On 15-May-23

Re: [Anima] Adoption call on draft-eckert-anima-brski-discovery-01 by 2024/2/23rd

I fully support adoption of this draft. It's a very useful consolidation of information that is otherwise widely spread and hard to visualize. We should pay attention later to clearly identify which sections are informative references to other documents, and which sections are new normative

[Anima] GRASP, NETCONF and YANG

Seeing Toerless's comments on draft-ietf-anima-network-service-auto-deployment reminded me of what I think is the largest unsolved issue in the GRASP model. How does GRASP interwork with the NETCONF/YANG approach to network management? I don't really know how to answer this, but if ANIMA

[Anima] Re: draft-ietf-anima-network-service-auto-deployment-06 comments

On 16-May-24 18:58, Sheng JIANG wrote: Hi, Toerless, Thanks for your further suggestion. It is fair to have a specific resource deployment as a proof example alongside the framework document. Storage could be one. Actually, I am thinking computing resource may be even more straight forward as

[Anima] Lightweight GRASP

I think it would be good to see a first draft on this, with some ideas about UDP and COAP instead of TCP. Regards Brian ___ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

<    2   3   4   5   6   7