Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote: > I did not want to reopen the bottle on GRASP, and i did not want to > delay ACP spec either with discussions about this naming strategy > either.
I understand. The problem is that I don't know how to read the paragraph I quoted. It *seems* to instruct IANA to reserve more names, yet doesn't actually go as far as saying that. If it is not doing that, then maybe it should be removed and let draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd do it's thing. The problem is that once the document is adopted, the WG could decide that we want to name it "SERVICE.<foo>", or maybe some other scheme, but your text, in attempting to anticipate things, constraints what the WG can do. > The whole explanation of the idea and ask for reserving of the whole > SRV.est is in draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd. Once we would adopt this > and it goes to RFC, that would be an update to GRASP RFC asking for the > IANA update to the registry. >> Note that the objective format "SRV.<service-name>" is intended to >> be used for any <service-name> that is an [RFC6335] registered >> service name. This is a proposed update to the GRASP registry >> subject to future work and only mentioned here for informational >> purposed to explain the unique format of the objective name. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima