Esko Dijk <esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl> wrote:
> 1) new attributes in a standardized way (e.g. defined by IETF or
> others, vendors themselves). We are looking for a method of extending
> that's easier than spinning a new RFC each time that includes all the
> combined changes in one YANG model. E.g. something using a registry.
> The extending party would have to know YANG a bit; but not be an expert
> on YANG or what "augment" means and can/cannot do.This was in the PR: https://github.com/anima-wg/voucher/pull/79 > 2) vendor-specific data Created by MASA, consumed by Pledge. The data > is not complying to a YANG model. Vendor / implementer knows near > nothing about YANG/modules and wants to stay as far as possible from > that. > I understand that we wanted to tackle 1) in RFC8366bis, while 2) is > under discussion - maybe. https://github.com/anima-wg/voucher/pull/81 > While PEN-based spaces works for 1), it doesn't address case 2). For Doing PEN-based SID allocation is still worth doing. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org
