Brockhaus, Hendrik <[email protected]> wrote: >> The thread ending at >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/MQkNXJJjMkP0nqKlNEaxDZ94RgI >> alludes to this, but the current -03 document does not include this proposal, >> because it would need to go into BRSKI itself.
> I would appreciate to use /.well-known/brski for the endpoints
> specified in BRSKI and use /.well-known/est for those specified in
> RFC7030.
> This offers more flexibility for future extensions like BSKI-AE.
Such a change would be large to BRSKI.
Brian suggests making this an update.
But, I think it would cause market confusion if we published an RFC with
/.well-known/est/requestvoucher, and then said, "no sorry, no we meant
/.well-known/brski/requestvoucher"
Would there be pledge implementations that would try one and then the other?
I will say that I'm *NOT* keen on including the Resource Link GET, but I can
tolerate it.
I think that we'd need to:
1) blessing of our AD.
2) pull document out of RFC-editor queue.
3) revise it, do a WGLC on revision.
4) get AD to put it back in queue.
The ROLL WG did this for a document last year when we realized that a new
document obsoleted some of the recommendations. It took longer than planned,
but that was partly because the other document had to settle a bit.
I think we could do this in the time for the 2nd WGLC and about four days.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
