On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:41:14PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I have no objection. My only caution is that otherName is poorly supported
> in the open source tool sets, but that is something we could conceivably work
> on.
Thanks, i would count it towards the need for experimentation.
If there is explicit feedback that otherName will be less well
implementable/deployable
than URI / "urn:ietf:params:acp:node:<AcpNodeName>", then i would at this
stage of the process probably still rather start a second 3 page normative
RFC that specifies the use of the URN Name for ACP as an alternative,
because after 6 years it would be a nice change not to further drag our
heels on the first ACP RFC.
Cheers
Toerless
> Eliot
>
> > On 2 Jul 2020, at 15:29, Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear WG (ACP author head/hat on)
> >
> > ACP Revision -26 introduced a new otherName / AcpNodeName encoding for the
> > ACP Domain Information
> > (now call AcpNodeName / acp-node-name). Michael Richardson (and potentially
> > other) implementors
> > would like to update implementation to use this new encoding for interop
> > testing,
> > which requires allocation of two IANA code points (technically i think only
> > one is
> > required for the implementation, but the toolchain would require both if i
> > understand it
> > correctly).
> >
> > The early allocation process RFC7120 requires to vet the community for
> > interest in the
> > early allocation, so pls. chime in with a +1, or if you must a -1 and
> > explanation.
> >
> > I'll do a +1 from the authors side.
> >
> > The remaining requirements of RFC7120 for early allocations are AFAIK met.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Toerless
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Anima mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
--
---
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
