Re: [Sidrops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-06.txt

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

> On Oct 1, 2021, at 2:47 AM, Tim Bruijnzeels <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I saw this:
> 
>> On 30 Sep 2021, at 23:11, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>     version        [0] INTEGER DEFAULT 0,
> 
> This is how it was done, and also what the e.g. the ROA profile uses.
> 
> However, reading the ASPA profile I came across another way, like:
> 
>     version        [0] VERSION DEFAULT v0,
> 
>     VERSION ::= INTEGER { v0(0) }
> 
> 
> This does not change the profile really afaik, but I believe this
> explicitly limits the available options of 'version' to just 'v0',
> i.e. an INTEGER with value 0. So, this may be a bit better in that
> regard.


Tim:

These produce the same bits on the wire.  The difference is that the various versions have names ifor each of the integer version values.  In that case, the name is "v0".

When v1 gets defined, the definition needs to be expanded to:

   VERSION ::= INTEGER { v0(0), v1(1) }

For example, RFC 5652 has:

  CMSVersion ::= INTEGER  { v0(0), v1(1), v2(2), v3(3), v4(4), v5(5) }


Russ