Re: [CDNi] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing (take 2)

So I was reviewing all the extension points. I noticed that although
the s-uri-signing logging field is added to the IANA registry, the
field itself is defined by a list of numbers that are themselves part
of no registry. Since there's a one-to-one mapping between all failure
types and a logging code, any extension claims cannot record an
associated code. This will cause implementations to try to pick a
"related" or "generic" logging code for validations that fail on
account of a supported extension. (Unsupported extensions, of course,
would record 409.) Is there a reasonable way to provide a registry for
these codes?

As an editorial note, the header provided in the example for cdni
metadata is not valid: "jwt-header": "1234abcd". That 1234abcd should
probably be a valid jwt header instead.

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 1:46 AM Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>   Today will begin the two-week WGLC on: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-18
>
>   Please send any comments, questions, or concerns to the CDNI mailing list: cdni@ietf.org
>
>  The WGLC will end on Wednesday August 7, 2019, at which time, assuming there are no objections, we will submit the draft to the IESG
>
> thanx!
>
> --  Kevin, Phil, and Francois
> _______________________________________________
> CDNi mailing list
> CDNi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni