Paul Wouters píše v St 10. 04. 2019 v 05:13 -0400: > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > For the record, I prefer Lada’s solution of having a union that takes > > > both a number and an identity/enum. > > > > To be concrete, it means, for example (without descriptions and references) > > > > typedef ike-integrity-algorithm-t { > > type union { > > type uint16; > > type enumeration { > > enum NONE { > > value 0; > > } > > enum AUTH_HMAC_MD5_96 { > > value 1; > > } > > ... > > } > > } > > } > > > > The unassigned and private use values won't be present as enums but can > > be used via the numeric value. > > > > This IMO provides the benefits of both approaches and, moreover, the > > enum values are documented in place. > > But that is a bug, not a feature. The location of the enum values are in > the IANA registries which continiously are updated. Putting snapshots of > those in RFCs is a bad idea.
Not necessarily. If you look, for example, at RFC 7224, it is IANA's responsibility to keep the registry in sync with the YANG module. No further effort is required from the WG that prepared the initial revision of the module. Lada > > Paul -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
