On 01/06/2018 07:35, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> > 1. The GRASP specification of 4.1.1 should only describe what is
> required
> > and valid for the standard of GRASP objective, which is the TCP proxy.
>
> > Appendix C proxy option is not full/formally worked out, thats why
> > its in an appendix. If the authors want to propose a formal GRASP
>
> It's not mandatory to implement, which is why it got pushed to the appendix.
> If it wasn't worked out, then it would be removed.
>
> > 2. A value of IPPROTO_IPV6 which i guess would be desired for an
> > appendix C proxy would IMHO be an extension to whats defined in GRASP.
>
> I think you mean, "defined in the GRASP object defined in CDDL", here.
>
> > An RFC specifying that would therefore have to declare itself to be
> > an update of GRASP. I don't think this is a big deal. It would become
>
> I think that you mean, update of BRSKI rather than "update of GRASP".
Possibly both, because GRASP already defines
transport-proto = IPPROTO_TCP / IPPROTO_UDP
IPPROTO_TCP = 6
IPPROTO_UDP = 17
On 01/06/2018 07:09, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Btw: The specific issue of extening transport options could have been
> avoided by permitting 0..255 in GRASP.
Except that it would implicitly lock us into to a particular IANA registry,
allowing strange things like
transport-proto = IPPROTO_TP
and who's to say that we might not also want things like
transport-proto = HTTPS
I agree that we might want to revisit this in a GRASP update.
Brian
>
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
