On 31/05/2018 13:53, Toerless Eckert wrote: .... > 4.1.1: > >> transport-proto = IPPROTO_TCP / IPPROTO_UDP / IPPROTO_IPV6 > > The way i see it, the normative approach with TCP circuit proxy would > always only have TCP, right, e.g.: the line should say > > transport-proto = IPPROTO_TCP ; Not considering non-normative > ; options like Appendix C.
There's kind of a general point about extensibility here. We're using CDDL as a normative notation (which may well become slightly awkward unless the CDDL draft advances soon), but are we intending to interpret it formally? In other words, if we later want to add " / IPPROTO_UDP / IPPROTO_IPV6" to implementations, do we have to circle back and update the BRSKI RFC? (And so on for any other documents that cite intrinsically extensible items like transport-proto.) One option in this case is to include "/ IPPROTO_UDP / IPPROTO_IPV6" in the syntax with a specific note that they are not currently defined and MUST be treated as errors if received. Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
