Re: [netmod] [Anima] revising RFC8366 -- Re: BRSKI-AE enum issue -> empty, but what's he encoding ?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 04 July 2021 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBEEB3A246F; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 15:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BA-2aMhl7bxX; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 15:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0C6F3A2470; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 15:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97EBA38B00; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 18:15:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 2NqAVb3zxJyK; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 18:15:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC2F38AAB; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 18:15:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB80D4B6; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 18:13:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: anima@ietf.org, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
In-Reply-To: <DM4PR11MB5438EE27158CDEAF63F89C97B5039@DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20210625190512.GB30200@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <5025.1624653668@localhost> <DM4PR11MB5438EE27158CDEAF63F89C97B5039@DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2021 18:13:25 -0400
Message-ID: <10907.1625436805@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/0e5PbBkoM5mx9GbfTHS1_3Qa5ME>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Anima] revising RFC8366 -- Re: BRSKI-AE enum issue -> empty, but what's he encoding ?
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2021 22:13:38 -0000

Hi, I have converted RFC8366.xml to Markdown, and switched to the latest MT
makefile, and after a bit of small massage to remove "8366" from the page,
and point to RFCs which are published, the result is at:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc8366&url2=draft-richardson-anima-rfc8366bis.txt


Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
    Rob> More seriously though, this can't be done as an errata.

    Rob> An RFC8366bis is the right option.  If the changes are minor then I
    Rob> may be able to ease the passage through the IESG, but I can't do
    Rob> much to affect the elapsed time.

I propose that the WG adopt this as the -00, and then we change the document
to change this into an RFC7224-style IANA-maintained YANG module.
(In DHC WG, when we did RFC3315bis to make RFC8415 we did a -00 which was
whitespace equivalent to RFC3315 first, and then we amended it)

As I understand it, we would be creating a Registry with IANA Considerations,
and when documents extend the Registry, that IANA writes a new YANG module
(with a new date) for us.

I believe that given that the module gets revised, that we don't have to
worry about enumeration vs leaf/choice/empty.  But, if there is some
advantage to doing it the non-enumeration way, it would be good to understand
that.

I also think that in our enumeration/Registry, that we should include the
"value" parameter, so that constrained-voucher can consistently set values
even if the enumeration changes order.

Subject: New Version Notification for draft-richardson-anima-rfc8366bis-00.txt
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2021 15:03:18 -0700

A new version of I-D, draft-richardson-anima-rfc8366bis-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Michael C. Richardson and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-richardson-anima-rfc8366bis
Revision:	00
Title:		A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols
Document date:	2021-07-04
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		22
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-richardson-anima-rfc8366bis-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-anima-rfc8366bis/
Html:           https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-richardson-anima-rfc8366bis-00.html
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-richardson-anima-rfc8366bis


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide