Qin Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. Since we still reuse rc:yang-data to model vouch-artifact, I > believe the model structure in section 5.1 of RFC8366 should keep as > is.
> 2. Secondly, vouch-artifact doesn’t need to be coupled with
> RESTCONF protocol message, suggest to use YANG extension statement
> “structure” defined in RFC8791 to replace yang-data.
Sorry, I'm confused here. I think that #1 says that yang-data is okay.
I think that #2 says that yang-data is not okay, and we need sx:structure
instead?
Are you saying that we should update to RFC8791?
Do you think that this is a bug-fix?
I'm asking, because we have discussed that RFC8366bis might go forward as a
(step-two) Internet Standard, rather than cycling at Proposed Standard.
> 3. Do we expect iana-voucher-assertion-type to be changed in the
> future, e.g., add a new enum value? Does it make sense to change
> voucher-assertion typedef into identity data type.
Yes, we expect that new documents will Extend it.
I don't know what an identity data type is here.... I thought we did the
right thing, so I do not quite understand what you are proposing.
--
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
