On 27-Jul-20 17:41, Fries, Steffen wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
>> From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>
>>     > 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"

I meant that the update would say
"please *add* /.well-known/brski/requestvoucher"

An extension, not an amendment (draft-kuehlewind-update-tag).

   Brian

>>
>> 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.
> The intention was not to include the discovery mechanism right away into 
> BRSKI. It was rather the question to rename the BRSKI defined endpoints to 
> /.well-known/brski to underline, that the voucher exchange is independent 
> from the chosen enrollment protocol. The discovery should be done in 
> BRSKI-AE, which should update the base specification then. I understand, that 
> we should not state /.well-known/est and the immediately update it afterwards 
> to /.well-known/brski . That would look awkward. If we just rename the 
> endpoints in BRSKI, would that cause such a large change? 
> 
> Best regards
> Steffen
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> 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 =-
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> 

_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Reply via email to