Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I wonder if we could just write some errata on 8990 to explain what to
do.
>> I'm really skittish about "very brief RFCs"...
> Yes, and suggest to the AD that it should be "Hold for document update".
> Barring anyone else speaking up, I'd be happy wit
On 27-Jun-22 12:58, Michael Richardson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> "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
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> "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."
> In other words, Speci
Hi,
The question of a registry for the value field of a GRASP objective never came
up before the GRASP RFC was published, as far as I remember. What we actually
have in the IANA Considerations is:
"To assist expert review of a new objective, the specification should include a
precise descript
(Heads up to Brian and Toerless, and maybe Carsten)
Based upon review feedback and discussion among the BRSKI design team
(now on Tuesdays, btw), we have moved the bulk of the discovery mechanism
from draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy to
draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher.
First, this r
