Oh... There are so many discussions already following this adoption call. Some
of them went very deep already. I would like to start from two very root
questions before we spent a lot of time on deeper details.
a) answer to the adoption call: (with my co-author hat on) I support the
adoption because this work is useful giving that constrained devices are
important for ANIMA-targetted networks. Also, only after the draft became a WG
document, our follow-up discussion would become meaningful.
b) There are three parts of this draft (I have already seen some mistaken
comments that cross-over these parts): an UDP-based solution, a COAP-based
solution, a (potential) "link-local"GRASP (that is "non-IP discussion" section
for now), also one more forth solutions: cGRASP relay, and fifth cGRASP/GRASP
translator. They are targeting to different needs. I don't think we should or
could take that much in a single draft. My simple idea for now is to be able to
build a cGRASP-only ANIMA network, leaving the other parts later. Then, the
question would be much simpler: the ANIMA WG would like to have an UDP-based
solution or a COAP-based solution first? By putting the word "first" into the
question, I mean we don't have to decide by now whether the second solution for
other type of constrained devices is needed or not.
Regards,
Sheng
Toerless Eckert<t...@cs.fau.de> On Friday, May 9,
2025, 23:53 wrote:
Dear ANIMA WG enthusiasts
This email starts a three-week adoption call for drafts
draft-zhu-anima-lightweight-grasp
The timeline is longer than the usual two weeks because we have other drafts
up for adoption call in parallel.
[ Note that the file name only includes "lightweight" to make the revision
history easier,
the text already calls it constrained GRASP (cGRASP). It would/should be
renamed
to "constrained" during adoption. ]
This draft has undergone already several rounds of improvements and good
discussions on the list and during WG meetings. However, investing more
substantial
work into this effort would be much better spent if it was clear that the WG
agrees to carry this effort through, and hence this adoption call.
Constrained GRASP is a necessarily element for implementation of an ANIMA ANI on
constrained devices without requirements for TCP. It even more so would be
required
by ASA on devices without TCP. This includes potentially even
devices without IP, such as in BLE networks.
Constrained GRASP could have benefits also for non-constrained environements -
it could eliminate the need for different protocol approaches for
constrained/unconstrained
ANI environments.
Also, cGRASP could provide in-network flooding that could aleviate the need to
encumber
IGP protocols with additional, non-routing related information that needs to be
flooded.
So, please review, provide feedback, also if you are interested to help
as author or contributor.
And as always: If you don't like something, please explain.
---
Toerless Eckert (for the chairs)
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org
