On 01/06/2018 07:35, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote: > > 1. The GRASP specification of 4.1.1 should only describe what is > required > > and valid for the standard of GRASP objective, which is the TCP proxy. > > > Appendix C proxy option is not full/formally worked out, thats why > > its in an appendix. If the authors want to propose a formal GRASP > > It's not mandatory to implement, which is why it got pushed to the appendix. > If it wasn't worked out, then it would be removed. > > > 2. A value of IPPROTO_IPV6 which i guess would be desired for an > > appendix C proxy would IMHO be an extension to whats defined in GRASP. > > I think you mean, "defined in the GRASP object defined in CDDL", here. > > > An RFC specifying that would therefore have to declare itself to be > > an update of GRASP. I don't think this is a big deal. It would become > > I think that you mean, update of BRSKI rather than "update of GRASP".
Possibly both, because GRASP already defines transport-proto = IPPROTO_TCP / IPPROTO_UDP IPPROTO_TCP = 6 IPPROTO_UDP = 17 On 01/06/2018 07:09, Toerless Eckert wrote: > Btw: The specific issue of extening transport options could have been > avoided by permitting 0..255 in GRASP. Except that it would implicitly lock us into to a particular IANA registry, allowing strange things like transport-proto = IPPROTO_TP and who's to say that we might not also want things like transport-proto = HTTPS I agree that we might want to revisit this in a GRASP update. Brian > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima