On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 09:54:53AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Note: Process wise we might need to declare BRSKI RFC to be an update
> > to
> > GRASP RFC because of these two lines, but i would just wait until
> > this gets
> > discussed with IANA and then suggest that we change instead GRASP
> > before
> > it becomes RFC to:
> >
> > transport-proto = 0..255
>
> I'm really reluctant to do that for the reason I gave yesterday (it
> allows rubbish values).
Ok, but just permitting rubbish value does not mean anyone needs to use
rubbish values. And the pro argument is that it gives you for free all
the non-rubbish values that have been registered by IANA completely for free.
The only thing this says is that if you want to allocate a new value thats
not been registered by IANA and its ONLY needed for GRAASP locators and no
other locators, then you can use e.g.: the range 256...1024, and we
just need to find the right document to override the 0..255 sapce with 0..1024.
> I don't see why BRSKI can't just define the extra
> value that it needs. That doesn't really require an "Updates:" IMHO.
Whats your logic for that conclusion ? My logic for thinking that it is
an extension is that we're defining something which is not a subset of what
GRASP did define. So for example even if i do define all possible
crazy structures for "objective-value", i still define a subset, because
GRASP defined it as "any".
> I do want to revisit this later, very likely by adding an IANA registry,
> but I don't see the rush.
Right.
> > Aka: that way we can define IPPROTO_IPV6 perfectly in BRSKI without
> > extending GRASP (IMHO). We can still later on expend it beyond 255
> > when we need to,
> > but thats not a BRSKI RFC problem then anymore.
>
> Yes, I think that's true in any case.
[...]
> > c) Fix syntax:
> > from: flood-message = [M_FLOOD, session-id, initiator, ttl,
> > +[objective, (locator-option / [])]]
> >
> > to: flood-message = [M_FLOOD, session-id, initiator, ttl,
> > +[objective, locator-option ]]
> >
> > Aka: for this objective, locator-option is not optional,
> > but mandatory, because it indicates the proxy-type via the
> > transport-type which is part of the locator-option.
>
> That isn't a fix to the GRASP syntax, it's a *restriction* of the
> syntax for this particular case. Which is fine, but just note it
> as a restriction.
Exactly. Of course not the only one. The whole syntax is full of
restriction. "AN_Proxy" in the objective-name field is syntactically also a
restriction.
Cheers
Toerless
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
