Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > I did not want to reopen the bottle on GRASP, and i did not want to > delay ACP spec either with discussions about this naming strategy > either.
I understand.
The problem is that I don't know how to read the paragraph I quoted.
It *seems* to instruct IANA to reserve more names, yet doesn't actually go as
far as saying that.
If it is not doing that, then maybe it should be removed and
let draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd do it's thing.
The problem is that once the document is adopted, the WG could decide that
we want to name it "SERVICE.<foo>", or maybe some other scheme, but your
text, in attempting to anticipate things, constraints what the WG can do.
> The whole explanation of the idea and ask for reserving of the whole
> SRV.est is in draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd. Once we would adopt this
> and it goes to RFC, that would be an update to GRASP RFC asking for the
> IANA update to the registry.
>> Note that the objective format "SRV.<service-name>" is intended to
>> be used for any <service-name> that is an [RFC6335] registered
>> service name. This is a proposed update to the GRASP registry
>> subject to future work and only mentioned here for informational
>> purposed to explain the unique format of the objective name.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
