On 20-Aug-22 09:15, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 2022-08-19, at 23:05, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> 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...
Ditto, but referring to CDDL details. Off list, I suggested:
grasp-option = numeric-option / objective
numeric-option = option .within option-structure
option-structure = [0..255, any]
and then
option /= divert-option
etc.
and then we can use *numeric-option or ?*numeric-option as needed.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
