On 2022-08-19, at 23:05, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> EXTENSION_TYPE = 0..255 >> There is no reason to limit this to 255. >> ➔ EXTENSION_TYPE = uint >> (Do you plan to creat a registry for these? > > The 'extension_type' terminology is confusing, because these would > be new GRASP options, and they already have a registry. > >>> grasp-extension = [ EXTENSION_TYPE, *any ]
Ah, OK, Section 2.9.1 of RFC 8990 (why didn’t we provide CDDL for the general concept of a GRASP option?). So this really should have been called grasp-option, and the grasp-option in message-structure should have been called something else? (It seems to include both 2.9.1 grasp options and 2.10.1 objective options, as well as ttl and waiting-time in the message types defined in RFC 8990). Apologies for taking a while to swap in the GRASP details again... Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
