Re: [Geopriv] Other civic-related stuff

From: Richard L. Barnes ^lt;rbarnes@bbn.com>
Date: Tue Dec 07 2010 - 19:58:53 EST

> 2. Define a way to carry namespace + localName + value in CAtypes.
>
> 3. End use of CAtype numbers.
>
> 4. Create a registry for the namespaces. FCFS or Expert Review with a minimal template required only. Expert Review would only exist to look for duplicates and to make sure the template is filled out.

Overall, this proposal was sounding pretty good to me. But I don't see why ending CAtype numbers is necessary or a good idea. There doesn't seem to be any harm in keeping the numerical designations in the standard-required registry (while adding a "namespace" column) and allowing new standard options to use them. Given the efficiency gain, it could serve as an incentive to get a standard CAtype!

Note that you could also assign numbers to the FCFS extension schema registry as well, and get a little bit of efficiency. That way, for (2) you could have the generic extension binary type be:
{
  uint8_t EXT_CA_TYPE
  uint16_t NS_ID
  octet_string localName
  octet_string value
}
As a bonus, it would encourage people to register their schemas!

--Richard
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:58:53 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 07 2010 - 19:59:07 EST