Re: [Anima] Discovery of proxy/registrar insufficient (GRASP and more).

Thanks Brian, inline

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 08:45:39AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> If RFC8990 has a weakness, it is indeed that only the initial registration
> of a GRASP objective requires a specification and expert review. Personally
> I think this is a good thing, since it allows for flexible extensibility.
> Since the designated expert is Michael Richardson, he might have an opinion.

Right.

> I agree that if extra values of the objective are needed, they should
> be specified, and making that an Updates: 8995 seems appropriate.

I was wondering about that. So the logic is that the objective name is
indeed IANA registered that points to rfc8995, and we amend that objective
with new options. 

Could/should we be able to indicate in the IANA objective registry the new
proxy RFC or is that only taken care of by the Update flag/tracking ?

> But it must still be Updates: 8995 if it extends the details of the objective.
> (Regrettably, the proposed "Extends:" tag is still only an I-D.)

Right. Binary flag doesn't allow too many values ;-)

> > For example, with GRASP, it would of course be easy to indicate:
> >     EST-COAPS-STATEFUL
> >     EST-COAPS-STATELESS
> > 
> > This would require two separate GRASP objectives if a Registrar/Proxy supports both,
> > but would be the most easy solution.
> 
> Alternatively add options to the objective value. The value can be whatever we want,
> as long as we can say it in CBOR and make sure that the RFC8995 definition is a proper subset.

Let me expand on that in a separate answer

>     Brian
> 
> > 
> > Similarily, i guess we could have equal variations of the names for other discovery
> > mechanisms.
> > 
> > Cheers
> >      Toerless
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Anima mailing list
> > Anima@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> > 

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de