Re: [Rats] challenges of building dependant specifications against Internet-Drafts -- a way forward for EAT

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > The trouble is that I think many claims should be in the Standards
    > Action range (-255 to 255).  For example, nonce, ueid, submods section,
    > location, CoSWID and probably a few others should be in the standard
    > space. If I were IANA I would hesitate to register these in the
    > Standards Action range until the EAT document is further along.

The WG can ask for Early Allocation.
It should do it immediately, so that the Expert will provided feedback immediately.

    > It also seems poor practice to unilaterally pre-assign Standards Action
    > range claims in an EAT draft and then use them in a bunch of
    > implementations. Those numbers could be assigned to some one else
    > before EAT is an RFC.

You can do that if a registry you are just creating.
But, yes, you can't do that if you are using CWT.

    > Register them in the Specification Required space (255 to 65535) once
    > and for all. That will result in 3-byte map labels rather than 1-byte
    > map labels, but there’s no transition.

    > Finally, a third proposal:

    > Maybe we can convince IANA to pre-register a small clear set in the
    > standard space? Perhaps just nonce and UEID.

Please go read RFC7120.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [