Fine with me, i was just worried about a syntactical stickler 
complaining how a comment ("note this can be...) is no replacement
for a correct formal definition, but i will certainly not be that stickler.
(Likewise i would't have a formal argument to reject such a stickler,
  but ould only resort to "don't be such a stickler")

Cheers
    Toerless

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 08:24:31AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 20/06/2018 03:29, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > On 19/06/18 11:08 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >>  From our document:
> >>
> >> transport-proto /= IPPROTO_TCP   ; note this is an extensible CDDL choice
> >>                                   ; and can be added to in subsequent
> >>                                   ; specifications using the /= and //=
> > In further discussion about whether or not we now need an IANA registry 
> > in BRSKI to deal with this, we concluded that we did not, because GRASP 
> > already dealt with that in section 2.9.5.1, note 3, so we decided to 
> > refer to that instead:
> > 
> > transport-proto /= IPPROTO_TCP   ; note this can be any value from the
> >                                   ; IANA protocol registry, as per
> >                                   ; [GRASP] section 2.9.5.1, note 3.
> > 
> > 
> > We have also removed all referenced to IPPROTO_UDP and IPPROTO_IPV6 from 
> > the normative section.
> 
> That's a great solution; and as "note 3" says we can always add an
> IANA registry if we want values outside 0..255 for some reason.
> 
> (It's an obvious convention to use the same symbolic names as
> the socket API, but that doesn't seem necessary to state.)
> 
>     Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

-- 
---
t...@cs.fau.de

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

Reply via email to