I have reviewed the document and we have a PoC. I am also aware of
others that have done PoC code. I am not aware of any issues.
Eliot
On 31.05.18 03:56, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Dear ANIMA WG,
>
> After thorough review and discussions on the mailing list and in bootstrap
> meetings, leading
Thanks, Eliot
Good point, forgot to ask/mention this point in my previous emails.
As an ANIMA contributor, i would love for a draft/->RFC like BRSKI to
mention known existing implementations, especially open source, even if just
PoC.
But i have no idea if and/or how thats seen to be
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 08:48:18PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > I am only aware of github.com/cisco/libest, but would love to see
> > any known code be mentioned. Single sentence with references to
> > appropriate URLs to those implementations would suffice IMHO.
> > What do others think/know
On 31.05.18 20:43, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Thanks, Eliot
>
> Good point, forgot to ask/mention this point in my previous emails.
>
> As an ANIMA contributor, i would love for a draft/->RFC like BRSKI to
> mention known existing implementations, especially open source, even if just
> PoC.
>
>
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 03:07:15PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> > I would prefer to have the simple definition "ANI == systems that
support
>> > both BRSKI and ACP" in the doc itself. Threre is really no single
authoritative
>> > normative
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> 1. The GRASP specification of 4.1.1 should only describe what is required
> and valid for the standard of GRASP objective, which is the TCP proxy.
> Appendix C proxy option is not full/formally worked out, thats why
> its in an appendix. If the authors
Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> > f) IMPORTANT: Please add/define the term "ANI"
>>
>> > ANI - "Autonomic Network Infrastructure". Systems that support both
BRSKI and
>> > Autonomic Control plane - ACP
([I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]). ANI
>> > systems (pledges,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 31/05/2018 13:53, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> ...
>> 4.1.1:
>>
>>> transport-proto = IPPROTO_TCP / IPPROTO_UDP / IPPROTO_IPV6
>>
>> The way i see it, the normative approach with TCP circuit proxy would
>> always only have TCP, right,
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 03:07:15PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > I would prefer to have the simple definition "ANI == systems that
> support
> > both BRSKI and ACP" in the doc itself. Threre is really no single
> authoritative
> > normative document for ANI, so it should
On 01/06/2018 09:58, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> This should be in a special section "Implementation Status [RFC Editor:
>> please remove]" according to RFC7942/BCP0205. We have such a section in
>> draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15.
>
> I question the value of
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> > An RFC specifying that would therefore have to declare itself to be
>> > an update of GRASP. I don't think this is a big deal. It would become
>>
>> I think that you mean, update of BRSKI rather than "update of GRASP".
> Possibly both, because
On 01/06/2018 07:35, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > 1. The GRASP specification of 4.1.1 should only describe what is
> required
> > and valid for the standard of GRASP objective, which is the TCP proxy.
>
> > Appendix C proxy option is not full/formally
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> This should be in a special section "Implementation Status [RFC Editor:
> please remove]" according to RFC7942/BCP0205. We have such a section in
> draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15.
I question the value of adding that section during WGLC.
okay, it might sit in
On 01/06/2018 07:31, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 03:07:15PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >> > I would prefer to have the simple definition "ANI == systems that
> support
> >> > both BRSKI and ACP" in the doc itself. Threre
This should be in a special section "Implementation Status [RFC Editor: please
remove]" according to RFC7942/BCP0205. We have such a section in
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15.
Regards
Brian
On 01/06/2018 07:13, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 08:48:18PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Good point, forgot to ask/mention this point in my previous emails.
> As an ANIMA contributor, i would love for a draft/->RFC like BRSKI to
> mention known existing implementations, especially open source, even if
just PoC.
IDs have included
16 matches
Mail list logo
