Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > I checked the new version against my review comments; and the following > comment is still open – this is where Peter and me disagree.
understood.
I have no real opinion.
> core.* - CoRE WG types
> ace.* - ACE WG types
> brski.* - ANIMA WG types for BRSKI – not yet in the registry but
specified in
> draft-constrained-voucher.
> oic.* - any types specified by OCF/OIC
> fa.* - any types specified by Fairhair Alliance
> Hence my request to comply to this convention, however undocumented it
> is today. Any system architect would agree to that seeing the current
> list.
Can we ask core@ to review and comment then?
original message:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/s9yU6LPnV8pE17Ws2xjH2f0mrO0/
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
