Agree with the change from "URI" to "Path Segment". The cBRSKI draft is actually doing an update of this registry, see here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-26#section-15.4 This also updates the descriptions on existing entries. We might use this section to do the update if needed?
From my point of view, cBRSKI is nearing completion. Esko -----Original Message----- From: Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> Sent: woensdag 12 februari 2025 19:07 To: anima@ietf.org; Mahesh Jethanandani <mah...@cisco.com> Cc: i...@iana.org Subject: [Anima] the RFC8995 BRSKI well-known URIs registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/brski-parameters/ lists a table like: URI Description Reference This registry was added very late in the RFC8995 process, and probably did not get enough sober review. The descriptions that RFC8995 provides for the four existing things are really asinine. (It's okay: I can call myself this) Further, the heading "URI" is really wrong. draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm more correctly says, "Path Segment" for that heading. which is what it really is. So we have to write a new RFC to amend this, or can it just being an IESG action? (or tag this into some omnibus RFC) Nothing significant changes. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org
