Brian > Von: Anima <[email protected]> Im Auftrag von Brian E Carpenter > Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Juli 2020 22:46 > > Eliot, > > On 10-Jul-20 21:18, Eliot Lear wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > As Steffen has just noted, we have posted a WG draft. I want highlight one > aspect: > > > >> On 10 Jul 2020, at 09:39, Fries, Steffen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> o Inclusion of discovery options of enrollment endpoints at the > >> domain registrar based on well-known endpoints in Section 5.3 as > >> replacement of section 5.1.3 in the individual draft. This is > >> intended to support both use cases in the document. An > >> illustrative example is provided. > > > > This change as currently written would update basic BRSKI, and therefore > deserves a lot of discussion. If we want to go the route in the draft, and > if it is > not too late, I would get the change into the draft before the RFC comes out. > > I can't parse that sentence. Get "the change" into which draft? Before which > RFC comes out?
The change would be on the MASA URI extension as specified in BRSKI section 2.3.2. To become enrollment protocol agnostic, we propose to change from /est to /brski for the voucher exchange. The idea is to leave definition of the URI for the enrollment with the respective RFCs, e.g., /est from RFC7030. Define the /.well-known/brski for the paths /requestvoucher, /voucher_status, and /requestauditlog (and possibly also /enrollstatus) specifically specified in BRSKI. Hendrik _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
