Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > Kiding aside: Who needs to take which action now ?
I think that Warren needs to approve this update. 1) He could green-light an update/upload to the DT despite the embargo. 2) Probably needs to tell the RFC-editor that this change is approved. 3) Notify IANA that we missed an instruction. If the RPC has already started editing the document (crossed fingers for yes), then the diff will be more valuable to them than an updated XML. The lone diff is at: https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/commit/622ab481b84c55782d0e0fbe5d3526063c5dbc9c > 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] -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
