Subject: [Anima] operational considerations for BRSKI documents.

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 21:31:55 -0400

Chairs,

I'd appreciate if you could consider if the two documents:
    draft-richardson-masa-operational-considerations
    draft-richardson-registrar-operational-considerations

fit into the ANIMA charter.  It is quite possible that the WG is not ready to
consider whether or not to adopt them, but prior to that, it would be useful
to know if the WG even thinks it can adopt them.

The MASA considerations document represents security advice to a
manufacturer, clearly what we think is BCP.
I would like to see it adopted. Either publish is really quickly with
intention to revise (maybe start the -bis ID immediately), or leave it as an
Internet-Draft some time, to collect feedback.

The Registrar considerations document is as much a profile of ACP as it is a
profile of BRSKI, and it does tend to wander into "Design Requirements" in
places.  I don't appologize for being opinionated here.
This document might not fit into ANIMA, or the IETF at all.
(Oh, I know that we've published such documents before, but I'm not claiming
that was necessarily a good thing)

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