Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>> > Note that there is also a middle ground, namely an enumeration type
>> > factored out into an IANA maintained module that is process wise easier
>> > to extend - should extensions be needed more regularly.
>>
>> That would suit me. How do we do that?
>>
> You revise RFC 8366 and do the following:
> - You define an IANA maintained module defining the enumeration type.
This is the part that I don't know to do.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7950.html#section-9.6
says nothing about IANA. Is RFC7224 the model for this?
What document am I missing here?
> - You write IANA considerations for the new module.
> - You modify the existing module to import and use the enumeration type.
> - You do not make any modifications to the existing enumerations.
> - You republish the revised version of RFC 8366.
> A couple of month later (and after surviving all the reviews), you
> declare success. I fear there is nothing "cheaper".
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
