> On Jun 18, 2021, at 4:09 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Kent, my appologies for not putting enough context with my email. > Andy, thanks for the clarification. > > As I understand, in order to add a new assertion to RFC8366's leaf > "assertion", we have to revise RFC8366. > > Question: was it a mistake to make this an assertion, if we wanted to > be able extend it? > Can we do this via IANA registry in some way instead?
In hindsight, a more extensible solution would’ve been to define "leaf assertion” using “type identityref” instead of “type enumeration”, as then external modules could define additional “identity” statements. As Andy points out, the only way new enums can be added is via a module revision. An IANA registry cannot be used to extend RFC 8366 now…if that were desired, it would have had to be defined by RFC 8366. A revision of RFC 8366 could define such behavior, but then would might wonder why not use the revision to instead flip "leaf assertion” to “type identityref”. FWIW, "leaf assertion” is not used by SZTP (RFC 8572). K.
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
