Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-discovery-13
review-ietf-anima-brski-discovery-13-rtgdir-early-ceccarelli-2026-07-14-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-discovery-13
Requested revision 13 (document currently at 13)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2026-07-19
Requested 2026-06-27
Requested by Sheng Jiang
Authors Toerless Eckert , Esko Dijk
I-D last updated 2026-06-23 (Latest revision 2026-06-23)
Completed reviews Iotdir Early review of -13 by Russ Housley
Rtgdir Early review of -13 by Daniele Ceccarelli
Opsdir Early review of -13 by Xiao Min
Comments
This document introduces the use of discovery mechanisms such as CORE-LF, DNS-SD (unicast, mDNS)
and GRASP (the Generic Autonomic Signaling Protocol from ANIMA WG) to automate the deployment 
of the key enrollment protocol BRSKI into arbitrary networks using whatever the most appropriate 
discovery mechanism is and supporting all the different potentially non-interoperable versions 
of BRSKI depending on which individual (network) devices want to support.

This draft is primarily a specification of the mechanism, but if there are significant gaps
for understanding how to operationalize this technology that are not better answered in a separate
optional focussed document, we also like to hear feedback about that.
Assignment Reviewer Daniele Ceccarelli
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-anima-brski-discovery by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Aw-7nbORQL2ADV5JnduP_gb3LWM
Reviewed revision 13
Result Has nits
Completed 2026-07-14
review-ietf-anima-brski-discovery-13-rtgdir-early-ceccarelli-2026-07-14-00
Hello,
I have been selected to do a routing directorate "early" review of this draft.

Document: draft-ietf-anima-brski-discovery-13
Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
Review Date: 2026-07-15
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
resolved before it is submitted to the IESG.
The draft explains WHAT can be discovered (registrars, proxies, pledges)
and HOW variations are signaled, but I found it hard to understand HOW this
fits into a normal routed network with VLANs, routers, and possibly no
IPv6. The core ideas seem reasonable, but more plain-language deployment
guidance would help non-experts and operators.

Comments:

What I understood
BRSKI is about automatically enrolling new devices ("pledges") with a
trusted registrar. This draft does not define enrollment itself; it defines
how devices find the right registrar or proxy, especially when different
BRSKI variants exist and do not interoperate.
It supports three discovery methods:
- DNS-SD (often mDNS on the local link)
- GRASP (ANIMA signaling, sometimes over the Autonomic Control Plane)
- CORE-LF (CoAP-based discovery, often using multicast)
Join Proxies sit between pledges and registrars. The draft also defines how
to pick among multiple registrars and fail over if one is down.
What I found unclear from a routing perspective is the following:

1. What happens across subnets?
Much of the default behavior seems link-local:
- mDNS usually stays on one L2 segment
- GRASP proxy announcements use TTL=1 (one hop)
- CORE-LF examples use link-local IPv6 multicast
I understand pledges on the same switch/VLAN can discover a nearby proxy.It's
not clear to me the expected design when: - pledges are on access VLAN 10 - the
registrar is in a data center on another subnet - there is no mDNS relay and no
GRASP/ACP infrastructure Section 3.3.4 mentions large networks and anycast, but
only briefly. As someone new to this, I could not tell whether cross-subnet
deployment is explicitly supported with defined infrastructure, or left to
local deployment guides. I would suggest to add a simple "how to deploy in a
routed network" section with 2-3 example topologies and required network
elements.

2. Which discovery method should an operator choose?
The draft supports DNS-SD, GRASP, and CORE-LF, but I could not derive a clear
default for common cases: - small factory floor (one L2 domain) - enterprise
campus (many VLANs) - site with existing DNS but no ANIMA/ACP Section 3.5.1.1
mentions that unicast DNS-SD needs working DNS (often from RA options), while
GRASP may auto-configure more. That helped, but I would like a short decision
table: "if your network looks like X, use Y." Is this something doable or the
combinations would be too many?

3. Addresses in announcements confused me
GRASP and CORE-LF examples mostly show link-local IPv6 addresses (fe80::).
If a Join Proxy on one subnet must reach a registrar on another subnet via
ACP/routing, should announcements contain routable addresses instead?
I may be missing something obvious, but this was not clear to me on first
read.

4. Security section helped, operations section is missing Section 6 explains
discovery can be untrusted (fake mDNS/GRASP announcements) unless the network
is secured (ACP, trusted DNS, etc.). That made sense. What I missed as a
newcomer is: "given a typical enterprise LAN, what do I need to configure on
routers/switches/DNS to make this work safely?"

Minor Issues
1. Section 2.2–2.3 and 3.1 are dense; a short "how it works in one page"
diagram or walk-through before the registry details would help new readers(also
noted in IoTdir review). 2. Section 3.5.1.1 mixes protocol signaling with DNS
resolver implementation notes; hard to tell what is normative vs. advice for
vendors. 3. Terms like "context", "variation string", and "socket" took effort
to map to real network elements; a small glossary with examples would help.

Thank you
Daniele