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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

    tp> Likewise involving IANA.  They maintain registries which anyone can
    tp> access.  They perform updates, on request, according to the policy of
    tp> the registry, which is set when the registry is set up and can range
    tp> from requiring a Standards Track RFC to First Come First Served,
    tp> depending on how easy you want it to be to make changes.  See 'IANA
    tp> Considerations' RFC for the range of options.  And they can turn
    tp> updates to a registry into an update to a code module (such as an SMI
    tp> MIB).

Probably Standards Track RFC to update the voucher types.

    tp> What I am missing is how easy or difficult you want it to be to make
    tp> changes, who will make changes, (IETF only, another SDO, a manufacturer
    tp> ....), what review you want for changes by whom, how frequent changes
    tp> will be (usually a guess and usually wrong but it helps to have the
    tp> assumptions about the requirements spelt out) and such like.

    tp> As an engineer, I do like to know the requirements before working on the design!

We need to be able to write RFCs that extend the voucher types.
Not that often though.


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide