Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Based on my earlier review comments: see below Section 9 proposed text.
    > It adds these elements that I think are missing in the current -05
    > text. I hope that clarifies it.  Also it refers to an existing IANA
    > policy from RFC 8126.

At first, I was all... "how did we miss this".
But, back in section 5.3, JPY_Message was defined as an *array* not a map, so
there are no indexes to manage in an IANA registry.
(Or rather, the indexes are implicit, maybe)

Maybe we can text making this more explicit?


--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Reply via email to