Subject: [Anima-signaling] Next step on GRASP draft - feedback please

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:47:24 +1300

Hi,

I've now gone through Michael's comments (see previous message).
So there is a candidate -09 version at
https://github.com/becarpenter/animaproto/commit/54877e
and for convenient viewing, the diffs are temporarily at
https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/Diff-draft-ietf-anima-grasp-08-09A.htm

At the moment I've included 4 open issues:

59.  Add F_NEG_DRY flag to specify a "dry run" objective?.
60.  Change M_FLOOD syntax to associate a locator with each objective?		 	      	
61.  Is the SONN constrained instance really needed?
62.  Is it helpful to tag descriptive text with message names (M_DISCOVER etc.)?

My personal inclination is to say "yes" to #59, #61 and #62.

We really need Michael R & Toerless to reach an agreement about #61.

Input on the above and any other issues, please, please.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 14:13:17 -0500

> We really need Michael R & Toerless to reach an agreement about #61.

ack.
I'm still digging out from IETF97.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:34:38 -0500

> We really need Michael R & Toerless to reach an agreement about #61.

I think that I said we didn't need it.
That all we need is to become aware of the neighbours (which insecure DULL
can do with M_FLOOD), and that all the security is best done by IKEv2.
(And IKEv2, even if MacSEC is negotiated rather than IPsec)

The ACP-04 document imagines a protocol that isn't IKEv2 using some
unspecified encapsulation over (d)TLS transporting IP packets, and negotiated
using GRASP.  This hardly has any existing specification (one in tsvwg right
now), and has no hardware support anywhere.  It's not our place in this WG
to create new security protocols.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 15:33:45 +1300

>     > My personal inclination is to say "yes" to #59, #61 and #62.

(BTW, I meant #60 there.)

> I think that I said we didn't need it.

You did. But Toerless proposed it, so we need his opinion.

> to create new security protocols.

Yes, all I would expect to see negotiated over GRASP would be *which* security
mechanism to use; that's what is assumed in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-anima-ani-objectives-00#section-3.2

I have no skin in the game though; I'm quite happy with
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-anima-ani-objectives-00#section-3.1

Toerless?

Rgds
   Brian