On 5/24/17 2:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 25/05/2017 05:35, Adam Roach wrote:
On 5/24/17 12:07 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Adam Roach <[email protected]> wrote:
> My strong recommendation here would be to define a new GRASP protocol
> numbers registry, state that any values in the GRASP registry that
> correspond to a protocol in the
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml
> registry SHOULD use the same number (which you imply by your current
> choices to be a Good Thing), and that any values that are appropriate
> for GRASP but not general protocol numbers SHOULD be assigned by IANA
> starting with 252, with each subsequent such registration using the
> next smaller number available.
Actually, we aren't limited to 1-octet.
It's a CBOR integer, and grows automatically.
So we could have >=256 for GRASP-only things.
That's even better.
I'm still puzzled about doing this *specifically* for GRASP. Can this be
the only upper layer that would like to signal a choice of this kind?
You do take my point about being able to find the specification for a
codepoint by way of the IANA registry, right? Can you take an explicit
position on whether you think that's something we should ignore? I can't
tell whether you missed the point or just believe it's unimportant.
/a
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
