IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 28 June 2021 16:39 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 5AEE93A0E08; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 09:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 5EPH6BbFXTYC; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 09:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 550E63A0E03; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 09:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFD4D38A74; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:41:39 -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 GMReJfF9xs-C; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:41:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0EF38A6C; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:41:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96184885; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:39:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210628161448.23zzsb2iazxgakmd@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
References: <20210625190512.GB30200@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <5025.1624653668@localhost> <20210625224810.GC30200@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <AM7PR07MB6248F9002860D02203B1CC71A0039@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <20210628120924.xuuwnhnvz4jid7sp@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <26783.1624896286@localhost> <20210628161448.23zzsb2iazxgakmd@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
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: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:39:38 -0400
Message-ID: <5322.1624898378@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Z8yz2m9NIp7ASPV5Op1cUte-XlM>
Subject: Re: [netmod] revising RFC8366 -- Re: [Anima] 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, 28 Jun 2021 16:39:48 -0000

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
    >> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
    >> > Note that there is also a middle ground, namely an enumeration type
    >> > factored out into an IANA maintained module that is process wise easier
    >> > to extend - should extensions be needed more regularly.
    >>
    >> That would suit me. How do we do that?
    >>

    > You revise RFC 8366 and do the following:

    > - You define an IANA maintained module defining the enumeration type.

This is the part that I don't know to do.
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7950.html#section-9.6
says nothing about IANA.  Is RFC7224 the model for this?

What document am I missing here?

    > - You write IANA considerations for the new module.
    > - You modify the existing module to import and use the enumeration type.
    > - You do not make any modifications to the existing enumerations.
    > - You republish the revised version of RFC 8366.

    > A couple of month later (and after surviving all the reviews), you
    > declare success. I fear there is nothing "cheaper".

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email