Re: [Anima] Need WG input: Adam Roach's comment on GRASP

2017-05-31 Thread Carsten Bormann
Ah. 3.9.5.1 currently does not have a “.within” clause giving an expectation as to how the type "transport-proto” is going to grow as the protocol evolves. Foolishly, my brain inserted “uint” as the most obvious envelope type. Allowing negative values for transport-proto certainly would be

Re: [Anima] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2017-05-31 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31/05/2017 11:30, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > > brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On some other points that are dangling after previous

Re: [Anima] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2017-05-31 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Eric, > > On 01/06/2017 09:09, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > On

[Anima] Testing ASA Negotiation via GRASP over two hops

2017-05-31 Thread William Atwood
Brian Carpenter and I are pleased to report that we have successfully tested communication between two ASAs that are not sharing a link. ASA Gray ASA Briggs GRASP --X-- GRASP --X-- GRASP (Gingko) (Ritchie)(Iverson)

Re: [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's question on GRASP (1)

2017-05-31 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 30/05/2017 06:51, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> -7, Grasp Message and Options table: Why "Standards Action"? Would you > >> expect some harm to be done if this were only Spec Required? > > > Personal opinion: I see

Re: [Anima] [Anima-bootstrap] Voucher signing method

2017-05-31 Thread Michael Richardson
Max Pritikin (pritikin) wrote: > (libjwt) didn’t support it. After looking at the code more closely I’m > not sure a jwt abstraction layer is really even needed; JWS is pretty > simple to use directly. I’ve forked libjwt and will upload my diff to > github

Re: [Anima] Need WG input: Adam Roach's comment on GRASP

2017-05-31 Thread Brian E Carpenter
We can do that, when we need it. To get the draft out of the door, I'll do what was previously suggested: > Proposal: Note in the text that the current values are taken from the > existing Protocol Numbers registry. Also note that if values are required > in future that are not in that registry,

Re: [Anima] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2017-05-31 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 01/06/2017 00:59, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter > > wrote: > > On 31/05/2017 11:30, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > >

Re: [Anima] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2017-05-31 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31/05/2017 14:17, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > > brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Now getting to Eric's COMMENTs: > >> > >> On 25/05/2017

Re: [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's question on GRASP (2)

2017-05-31 Thread Ben Campbell
> On May 28, 2017, at 11:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > On 23/05/2017 13:25, Ben Campbell wrote: > ... >> - Is section 2 [Requirements] expected to be useful to implementers once >> this is> published as an RFC? Unless there's a reason otherwise, I would