Subject: [Anima] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-28: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:14:53 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-28: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) §6: "An ACP node... Initially, it MUST have...an (empty) ACP Adjacency
Table..."  Is "empty" a requirement?  I'm wondering because §6.2 says that the
adjacency table can also contain configured information, which I assume would
be present before neighbor discovery starts.

(2) As far as I understand, events happen in this order:  The ACP Adjacency
Table (§6.2) is populated with information from DULL GRASP (§6.3).  Based on
that information, a candidate set of neighbors is selected (§6.4).  Is that
correct?

§6.4 (Candidate ACP Neighbor Selection) says that the "ACP is established
exclusively between nodes in the same domain".  However, the domain membership
check is not performed until later (§6.6).

How are the candidate nodes selected in §6.4?  Some nodes may not be chosen,
right?  How can it be verified that the candidate nodes are in the same domain
without performing the domain membership check first?

§6.6 says that "the connection attempt is aborted" if the domain membership
check fails -- but there is no mention about considering other candidates.  It
seems to me as if it may be possible for some selected candidates to not pass
the domain membership check...  What am I missing?

(3) §6.11.1.8 (Multicast): s/Not used yet but possible because of the selected
mode of operations./Not used but possible if the selected MOP is 3.

(4) [nits]

s/explanation how ACP acts/explanation of how ACP acts

s/nodes ACP certificate/node's ACP certificate/g

s/nodes ACP address/node's ACP address