IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu> Mon, 05 July 2021 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu>
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 6A8CF3A2073 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 10:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.239
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.338, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 PNoWHH7fkd9n for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 10:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-f172.google.com (mail-pf1-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE98E3A206D for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 10:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-f172.google.com with SMTP id 17so16976273pfz.4 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 10:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IWHvEH06fTCQ7G+LqWmJ8iNE7bwsao1ZTqpo3jL3nJY=; b=JpcijWtgkU+O2tyNhnudc1ayBidlFTC/HcSqYhhSYqtvdCXPCcgfDR95ZXiFgqU1un lM4jCMeFGNzxe8KEinRZABkkDaE74+SkCXskASvx9MgGjhwcjEiizAArTA7HDCcj4ReM gNQYCROUjckZUrg3NoMhOC3w/OBTQZhXdmJSL0yjMDVlOXA/BoZ1vj/qz1mdJf8SqRps 35W1IlcpC2VJksHYTPcfMKLYl2wf1FEjPSl9+FkNFNM89IMFRnhr2delRLhpRu2BEmb1 boxl1tcf9JMRa/eguxlb5eAz8yxfaJ/+0seQkJAVgXfqGhXmmcg0UYpEEgbeXOjMvKUi nIDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53316GrZ9DL9vRM87OPu+gGX/ZNnIYmuJwa/NTxSF6xkC5FzZ23G OpBGS1GqLGaxNrex3wBbHNWjfQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwtVpvdYi/wvtImLyfFbHil0lUszACiHq0ZzyLBRQXTF1/3MLnFhtaJkj4WdOqfwrSRG3t0Mg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:5cb:: with SMTP id 194mr16501265pgf.146.1625506163183; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 10:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:646:9300:791:ad33:1ff5:5bf9:4138? ([2601:646:9300:791:ad33:1ff5:5bf9:4138]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d13sm77112pjr.49.2021.07.05.10.29.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Jul 2021 10:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
To: netmod@ietf.org, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
References: <AM7PR07MB62487F5BB3361E8745B54203A01C9@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <f5b5369b-fb9e-6ede-2351-973d72a38ed6@alumni.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 10:29:20 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR07MB62487F5BB3361E8745B54203A01C9@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/YnYVbWkMObqDODurs2qAPGrhUno>
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: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 17:29:29 -0000

Hi -

On 2021-07-05 9:13 AM, tom petch wrote:
...
> Well my answer would be that confusion reigns.  An IANA Registry is > authoritative so the minute the RFC is published asking IANA to
> maintain a module, then the module in RFC8366(-bis) is obsolete.
> Trouble is, that the rest of the RFC - if any - is not.
...

There are other straightforward ways to deal with this.

In ltru the I-Ds contained both material for publication
in the RFC as well as a *massive* amount of material for
population of the IANA language tag registry.  We needed
it in I-D form for review during development, but wanted to
remove all temptation to use the RFC instead of the IANA
registry.

All it took was a word of instruction to the RFC editor
to delete the many many many pages of registry content
upon publication.  Worked fine.

In this case, just tell the RFC editor to delete the
IANA-maintained module.

Randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email