Re: [Anima] ANIMA-WG: pls chime in: early allocation for otherName code points (draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane)

+1 

I consider going with otherNames for the ACP domain the safe way. Taking interactions with existing infrastructures into account may lead to potential misinterpretations of using other fields as the discussion has shown. Having a distinct allocation is more clear. 

Best regards
Steffen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anima <anima-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
> Sent: Donnerstag, 2. Juli 2020 15:29
> To: anima@ietf.org
> Cc: anima-chairs@ietf.org; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>;
> housley@vigilsec.com
> Subject: [Anima] ANIMA-WG: pls chime in: early allocation for otherName
> code points (draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane)
> 
> Dear WG (ACP author head/hat on)
> 
> ACP Revision -26 introduced a new otherName / AcpNodeName encoding
> for the ACP Domain Information (now call AcpNodeName / acp-node-name).
> Michael Richardson (and potentially other) implementors would like to
> update implementation to use this new encoding for interop testing, which
> requires allocation of two IANA code points (technically i think only one is
> required for the implementation, but the toolchain would require both if i
> understand it correctly).
> 
> The early allocation process RFC7120 requires to vet the community for
> interest in the early allocation, so pls. chime in with a +1, or if you must a -1
> and explanation.
> 
> I'll do a +1 from the authors side.
> 
> The remaining requirements of RFC7120 for early allocations are AFAIK met.
> 
> Thanks!
>     Toerless
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima