On 25/05/2017 05:35, Adam Roach wrote: > On 5/24/17 12:07 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: >> Adam Roach <a...@nostrum.com> wrote: >> > My strong recommendation here would be to define a new GRASP protocol >> > numbers registry, state that any values in the GRASP registry that >> > correspond to a protocol in the >> > >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml >> > registry SHOULD use the same number (which you imply by your current >> > choices to be a Good Thing), and that any values that are appropriate >> > for GRASP but not general protocol numbers SHOULD be assigned by IANA >> > starting with 252, with each subsequent such registration using the >> > next smaller number available. >> >> Actually, we aren't limited to 1-octet. >> It's a CBOR integer, and grows automatically. >> So we could have >=256 for GRASP-only things. >> > > That's even better.
I'm still puzzled about doing this *specifically* for GRASP. Can this be the only upper layer that would like to signal a choice of this kind? Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
