Hi Brian, > On 23 May 2017, at 04:57, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Just cherry-picking a COMMENT point that does need some thinking: > >> The CBOR definition has constants for IP_PROTO_TCP and IP_PROTO_UDP, but >> no way to register additional values with IANA. This does not seem >> future-proof. > > This is a tricky point. The values are of course already IANA values from > https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml > If we wanted to add, say, SCTP that would be straightforward enough, without > bothering IANA. > > But what if we wanted to specify, say, HTTP or QUIC or anything else that > doesn't run directly over IP? > > I think that's a much bigger problem than just GRASP. So I personally prefer > to leave it alone for now. If the Transport Area has an answer, that > would be great.
Can you at least establish an IANA registry? > Regards > Brian > >> On 23/05/2017 10:40, Adam Roach wrote: >> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-grasp/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> The document includes a couple of instances of "reasonable" in normative >> statements (e.g., "reasonable timeout"). I would strongly recommend >> having specific recommendations in the document where this happens. >> >> The CBOR definition has constants for IP_PROTO_TCP and IP_PROTO_UDP, but >> no way to register additional values with IANA. This does not seem >> future-proof. >> >> Section 3.8.4 talks about behavior when a node has a "globally unique >> address," but provides no guidance for detecting this. Are nodes expected >> to check for link-local, zeroconf, RFC 1918, and RFC 6598 addresses? Any >> others? > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
