Clarify "standard CoRIM type" #206
Conversation
There's a base schema and there's a standard type, so we ought to define the separate concepts. Signed-off-by: Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>
deeglaze
requested review from
henkbirkholz,
thomas-fossati,
yogeshbdeshpande and
nedmsmith
as code owners
draft-ietf-rats-corim.md
Outdated
| @@ -453,6 +453,8 @@ that MUST have a different identifier. | |||
| {::include cddl/profile-type-choice.cddl} | |||
| ~~~ | |||
|
|
|||
| A "standard CoRIM type" references definitions in {{sec-corim-cddl}} and any further definitions in relevant IANA registries. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| A "standard CoRIM type" references definitions in {{sec-corim-cddl}} and any further definitions in relevant IANA registries. | |
| A "standard CoRIM type" references definitions in {{sec-corim-cddl}} and any further definitions in relevant standards or IANA registries. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this assumed to be IETF standard, or is there a list of expected standards bodies that extensions could come from?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There could be other I-D from IETF or even other standards organizations could extend. There are some control surfaces in terms of IANA registries for code points and CBOR tagging, but IANA doesn't constrain itself to IETF-only standards.
I'm not entirely clear on why this kind of wording in needed in the first place however. Is the "standard CoRIM type" terminology used elsewhere in the document?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's used in the document without definition, so unless you want to replace the current use to something clearer, we should add a definition. There's a "standard CoRIM extension" later referencing CoTS, but that seems like a different notion of extension than the map codepoint extensions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would expect that any number in IANA registries would link to the standard document that introduced it and gives it meaning, which is why I just used the IANA registry. That's the one authority that can assign numbers that are used in these extension points, no?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think "standard CoRIM type" is referring to the codepoints within measurement-values-map but this isn't very clear from the text.
I wonder whether it would be better to say something along the lines of "a profile SHALL not redefine anything in this document, but it can add to it", which is what I think the current text is trying to say.
|
@henk to raise another PR to add another section of linking profiles to extensibility. |
There's a base schema and there's a standard type, so we ought to define the separate concepts.