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 =-



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Reply via email to