Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> This email is approving the work for WG adoption, but hopefully with
> the degree of sufficient detail to make it clear what is to be achieved
> and how.
Fantastic.
> 2. "constrained GRASP over CoAP" - unicast
> 2.a) The current draft describes actually one option to do this, by
> implementing GRASP simply as an "application" on top of CoAP - without
> changing CoAP.
> 2.b) There is also the option to extend CoAP with new CoAP message
> types that would support (unicast) GRASP. Specifically
> synchronize/negotiate message types which would be multi-round-trip
> reliable unicast message CoAP transactions, This would be more
> optimized, but likely would need good persuasion of CORE-WG of the
> benefit.
I think that these two things are not mutually exclusive.
I think we could do both, but I think that 2.b) probably needs at least
cross-WG coordination with CORE to do. As in, we generate requirements, and
CORE has to do the work. Of course, it's the often nsame people in the end.
> The authors have also confirmed that they are able and willing to do
> PoC implementation work for the draft. I think this is very positive,
> because in the past, the absence of such a commitment made it very hard
Yes, that's fantastic.
> So, authors, please submit
> draft-ietf-anima-constrained-grasp-00
> Note the change to "constrained", which was discussed in adoption
> thread, simply to better match prior ANIMA work on constrained BRSKI so
> it is clearer that this is for the same type of ANIMA/ANI networks.
Good.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org
