Kiding aside: Who needs to take which action now ? On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 04:15:21PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am i completeley confused, or did we miss until now the IANA request in > BRSKI for > > the new entries AN_Proxy and AN_join_registrar ? > > I dunno what happened. > But, you are exactly right. > Who to blame? when in doubt? clearly, BLAME CANADA. > > It wasn't until my third reading of: > grasp-15, section 6, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15#section-6 > > that I saw that GRASP actually does create a _GRASP Objective Names Tables_. > I was going to complain that there was no registry created, but it just > didn't have it's own heading: > > GRASP Objective Names Table. The values in this table are UTF-8 > strings which MUST NOT include a colon (":"), according to > Section 2.10.1. Future values MUST be assigned using the > Specification Required policy defined by [RFC8126]. > > To assist expert review of a new objective, the specification should > include a precise description of the format of the new objective, > with sufficient explanation of its semantics to allow independent > implementations. See Section 2.10.3 for more details. If the new > objective is similar in name or purpose to a previously registered > objective, the specification should explain why a new objective is > justified. > > > I was just checking IANA actions for ACP and did not see these two in > the GRASP > > registry: > > > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-44.txt > > > Not sure about the process, e.g.: if "specification required" (GRASP > registry) > > mandates the IANA text in the BRSKI RFC... I fear it does ? If three is > an easier > > way as having Warren approve another rev... ? > > I think that the text has to go in. > Warren needs to approve the change, and IANA needs to review, and then the > text needs to go in now or at AUTH48, depending upon where the RPC really is. > > I have version -45 ready to post, diffs are at: > > I think that this is non-constroversial, does not require a WG LC, and can > slide in at AUTH48, but as it required IANA review, it's better if it happens > sooner. > > It looks like the YANG is now 2-3 characters too long in places, so I've also > rewrapped that. The base64 in the examples will also need to be reflowed > ick. > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-44&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/master/dtbootstrap-anima-keyinfra.txt > > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ > ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails > [ > > > > > > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > >
-- --- [email protected] _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
