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