Did I post this already? I have just posted -04, which includes some, but not all, of the BRSKI-PRM changes. I missed the assertion changes in -04, but they are in -05.
-04: In fixing the SID allocations to be consistent (and fixing pyang/sid.py to always dump .sid files and list output in SID order. The augment mechanism results in a change the leaf path for the voucher-request, from: /ietf-voucher-request-constrained:voucher/nonce to: /ietf-voucher-request:voucher/voucher/nonce The change from request-constrained to request is anticipated, and I think acceptable. (This affects the JSON serialization) But, the additional of an extra "voucher" in the path concerns me. I tried "augment-structure" as described in RFC 8791, but pyang didn't like it. I tried to hack on things with yanglint, but I think it doesn't work. rfc8366bis-05: * I've also fixed the wrapping in the description so there are no rfc8792 wrapped lines. (Kudos to kramdown: it doesn't tell you about 8792 if it doesn't use them) * Table 1 is now down up in markdown format. I'm not sure how to make cells span rows. I would appreciate someone else to verify the new table 1 against RFC8366's version. https://github.com/anima-wg/voucher/pull/22/files I'm not going to merge this PR until I get some additional review on the differences, and the overall approach to the YANG. **I AM ASKING FOR A WG CHAIR CONSENSUS CALL** -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
