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