Re: [core-parameters] [IANA #1229125] expert review for draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy (core-parameters)

[Esko Dijk <[e-mail]>]

(Though I wasn't asked, adding my 2 cents here ...)

It looks like the issue is resolved: the new descriptions don't mention ports anymore but rather mention the type of resource that the rt represents. This is somewhat more generally phrased than for some other rt types, but I don't see this as a problem. The draft explains how the rt types are used in BRSKI and they don't intend to be used in a wider scope at the moment.  In other words, the descriptions may sound a bit "vague" but that is done on purpose.

One thing to note is that the brski.rjp resource type is now used in the -12 draft to point to a URI/link that uses another scheme, specifically "coaps+jpy" , and not the usual coap/coaps. The description of the brski.rjp type is nevertheless kept more general than that, it could point to any other (future?) Join-Proxy-specific resources of a BRSKI Registrar also, which may use other schemes.

So overall to me it looks good. And as Carsten indicated, we anyway don't need full consensus to perform the registration now already.

Regards
Esko

-----Original Message-----
From: core-parameters <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Amanda Baber via RT
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 02:27
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [core-parameters] [IANA #1229125] expert review for draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy (core-parameters)

Hi Carsten,

Has this been resolved? Is it possible to approve the current version of these registrations (pending IESG approval for publication)?

thanks,
Amanda

On Tue Jul 12 21:25:30 2022, amanda.baber wrote:
> Hi Carsten, Jaime (cc: anima),
> 
> Can you approve the Resource Type (rt=) Link Target Attribute Values
> registrations in version -11 of this document?
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-anima-constrained-
> join-proxy
> 
> thanks,
> Amanda
> 
> On Thu Apr 07 21:44:01 2022, sabrina.tanamal wrote:
> > Hi Carsten,
> >
> > We have a response from the author:
> >
> > Thanks for your reaction.
> > Suggestion for new readable titles are below. I will insert them in
> > the coming version 10 of the draft.
> >
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > OLD
> >    Attribute Value: brski.jp
> >    Description: This BRSKI resource type is used to query and return
> > the
> >                 supported BRSKI (CoAP over DTLS) port of the
> > constrained
> >                 Join Proxy.
> >    Reference: [this document]
> >
> > Attribute Value: brski.rjp
> > Description: This BRSKI resource type is used to query and return the
> >              supported BRSKI JPY protocol port of the Registrar.
> > Reference: [this document]
> >
> > NEW
> >
> > Attribute Value: brski.jp
> > Description: This BRSKI resource type is used to query and return the
> >              supported BRSKI resources of the constrained Join Proxy.
> > Reference: [this document]
> >
> > Attribute Value: brski.rjp
> > Description: This BRSKI resource type is used for the constrained
> > Join
> > Proxy
> >              to query and return Join Proxy specific BRSKI resources
> > of a Registrar.
> > Reference: [this document]
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > Hope this is understandable enough,
> >
> > ====
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Sabrina Tanamal
> > Lead IANA Services Specialist
> >
> > On Tue Apr 05 20:30:05 2022, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > Hi Sabrina,
> > >
> > > I looked at the registration requests in the draft.
> > > They use somewhat unusual language about discovering ports -
> > > resource
> > > discovery is understood to discover resources.  For brski.jp, this
> > > appears to be about discovering a CoAP or CoAPs entry point
> > > (without
> > > describing how exactly that is then used, e.g., what happens if
> > > that
> > > has a different IP address in the authority than the request
> > > address).
> > > For brski.rjp, this appears to be about discovering an entry point
> > > for
> > > a protocol that I don’t seem to fully understand the description
> > > for.
> > >
> > > I didn’t try to obtain a deep understanding of the protocol before
> > > writing this, but I would prefer if the language used for the
> > > description were understandable for other registrants in this
> > > registry, i.e., discussing resources, not ports (port numbers?).
> > >
> > > All the other criteria for a registration appear to be fulfilled.
> > >
> > > I don’t think we need to reach a consensus between the designated
> > > experts before proceeding.
> > >
> > > Grüße, Carsten
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 2022-04-05, at 18:43, Sabrina Tanamal via RT <drafts-expert-
> > > > [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Carsten and Jaime (cc: anima WG),
> > > >
> > > > As the designated experts for the Resource Type (rt=) Link Target
> > > > Attribute Values registry, can you review the proposed
> > > > registrations
> > > > in draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy for us? Please see
> > > >
> > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-constrained-
> > > > join-
> > > > proxy/
> > > >
> > > > If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for
> > > > publication,
> > > > we'll make the registration at
> > > >
> > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters
> > > >
> > > > If you're the first expert to submit a review, please let us know
> > > > whether you want us to wait for both reviewers to respond before
> > > > we
> > > > mark the document "IANA OK" (or send your comments to the
> > > > authors,
> > > > if
> > > > the registrations aren't OK).
> > > >
> > > > The IESG has asked us to set a two-week deadline for registration
> > > > reviews. The due date for this request is 19 April 2022.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Sabrina Tanamal
> > > > Lead IANA Services Specialist
> > > >

_______________________________________________
core-parameters mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core-parameters