Re: [Anima] proxy discovery of registrar

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 03/08/2017 07:46, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter  wrote:
> >> Toerless has instead written the M_FLOOD mechanism.
> >> We started a thread a few weeks ago about this... what happened to it, 
> I
> >> would have to look.  In either case, I would like to please discuss 
> this
> >> in the context of the BRSKI document, not the ACP.
> 
> > Sure. My understanding was discover/synchronize which is what
> > I put in draft-carpenter-anima-ani-objectives-03 (and in
> > the latest demo code if anyone cares:
> > https://github.com/becarpenter/graspy/blob/master/brski-demo.pdf ).
> 
> > But this needs to be a firm consensus in the BRSKI team.
> 
> I did take a look at the code yesterday in the end, and I'll like run it
> sometime soon, but I decided I didn't want to reverse engineer the spec from
> the code :-)
> 
> >> o  a synchronization objective option
> 
> > That implies that the registrar has something to announce to
> > the proxy (such as "I support foobar and barfoo").
> 
> Do we have some preference for "AN_join_register" (and AN_Proxy and AN_ACP),
> or is the AN_ prefix unwanted?

It's only a name, so we can do what we want. I put the prefix just to mark the
fact that they are ANI components but I have no strong feelings about it.

Brian

___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Re: [Anima] proxy discovery of registrar

[Michael Richardson]

Brian E Carpenter  wrote:
>> Toerless has instead written the M_FLOOD mechanism.
>> We started a thread a few weeks ago about this... what happened to it, I
>> would have to look.  In either case, I would like to please discuss this
>> in the context of the BRSKI document, not the ACP.

> Sure. My understanding was discover/synchronize which is what
> I put in draft-carpenter-anima-ani-objectives-03 (and in
> the latest demo code if anyone cares:
> https://github.com/becarpenter/graspy/blob/master/brski-demo.pdf ).

> But this needs to be a firm consensus in the BRSKI team.

I did take a look at the code yesterday in the end, and I'll like run it
sometime soon, but I decided I didn't want to reverse engineer the spec from
the code :-)

>> o  a synchronization objective option

> That implies that the registrar has something to announce to
> the proxy (such as "I support foobar and barfoo").

Do we have some preference for "AN_join_register" (and AN_Proxy and AN_ACP),
or is the AN_ prefix unwanted?

--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-





signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima