Fine with me, i was just worried about a syntactical stickler
complaining how a comment ("note this can be...) is no replacement
for a correct formal definition, but i will certainly not be that stickler.
(Likewise i would't have a formal argument to reject such a stickler,
but ould only resort to "don't be such a stickler")
Cheers
Toerless
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 08:24:31AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 20/06/2018 03:29, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > On 19/06/18 11:08 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >> From our document:
> >>
> >> transport-proto /= IPPROTO_TCP ; note this is an extensible CDDL choice
> >> ; and can be added to in subsequent
> >> ; specifications using the /= and //=
> > In further discussion about whether or not we now need an IANA registry
> > in BRSKI to deal with this, we concluded that we did not, because GRASP
> > already dealt with that in section 2.9.5.1, note 3, so we decided to
> > refer to that instead:
> >
> > transport-proto /= IPPROTO_TCP ; note this can be any value from the
> > ; IANA protocol registry, as per
> > ; [GRASP] section 2.9.5.1, note 3.
> >
> >
> > We have also removed all referenced to IPPROTO_UDP and IPPROTO_IPV6 from
> > the normative section.
>
> That's a great solution; and as "note 3" says we can always add an
> IANA registry if we want values outside 0..255 for some reason.
>
> (It's an obvious convention to use the same symbolic names as
> the socket API, but that doesn't seem necessary to state.)
>
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
--
---
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
