Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > I've reviewed draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-14 as part of the WGLC; with > issues/questions listed below and some editorial updates proposed in a PR. > (See: https://github.com/anima-wg/voucher/pull/85)
Thank you.
I've been fighting PYANG things for a few hours (DAYS?!), and I've run out of
time now. So I'm posting -16 with updates that I have. More details later.
> *** Section 7.4
> Some items have 2 SIDs assigned: additional-configuration-url, est-domain,
> expires-on.
Yes, this is the thing I'm fighting.
> *** Section 7.5
> "In JSON serialization, these extensions require a unique name, and this
MUST
> be allocated by IANA. The name MUST be the same as the YANG module name. "
-> this is unclear to me. If every extension has the same name, it's not
> unique and not useful.
> *** Section 8.1
> Again like in 7.1, why are some items/leaves outside of the "voucher"
> element?
Yes. ARGH.
> In the YANG, the name of RFC XXXX differs from the actual name - same
thing
> as in 7.3.
The RPC will s/XXXX/1234/ when they assign the number.
I got as far as:
> The boilerplate BCP text is included twice in the same field:
Sorry.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
