--- Begin Message ---
Hi Michael (et al),
I noticed two things about that diff:
1. 8.3.1 says 'IANA is asked to change the registration of "est" to include
RFC7030 and this document.' I don't see any use of the `est` well-known URI in
this document; why is that update necessary?
2. 8.3.2 asks for the BRSKI registry to be a sub-registry of the well-known URI
registry. I'm concerned that if adopted as common practice, this will make
crowd the well-known URI registry with a number of application-specific
sub-registries. As such my (fairly strong) preference would be for this
registry to be separate from it.
Cheers,
> On 17 Sep 2020, at 1:08 am, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote:
>> having to assume EST. Therefore the above BRSKI diff (and BRSKI-AE) propose
>> to introduce a /.well-known/brski registry.
>
> I believe that I ran the text by Mark, who I believe is the /.well-known
> expert reviewer. I believe that he said that it looked good, but it would be
> great if Mark could confirm that I got it right.
>
>>> Dear ANIMA WG
>>>
>>> This email starts a 2 week call for consensus to modify
>>> draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra
>>> such that new well-known URIs introduced by BRSKI will use a
>>> /.well-known/brski
>>> prefix instead of the pre-existing /.well-known/est prefix.
>>>
>>> The proposed change can be seen at the following rfcdiff URL:
>>>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-43&url2=draft-richardson-anima-brski-renamed-00
>>>
>>> This consensus call will end on September 14, 23:59 UTC
>>> This consensus call is ONLY for said change and not for any other aspects
>>> of BRSKI.
>
> Existing implementers have agreed to the change.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mark Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote:
> I noticed two things about that diff:
> 1. 8.3.1 says 'IANA is asked to change the registration of "est" to
> include RFC7030 and this document.' I don't see any use of the `est`
> well-known URI in this document; why is that update necessary?
Previously, all of the things in this document were /.well-known/est/FOOBAR.
They are now, /.well-known/brski/FOOBAR.
IANA has actually already acted on section 8.3.1, btw.
We need them to undo that.
I guess that section 8.3.1 should be removed, which I'll do.
I guess since the WG has passed this change, I should push the new version.
How about if I change it to:
<t>
IANA is asked to change the registration of "est" to now only
include RFC7030 and no longer this document.
> 2. 8.3.2 asks for the BRSKI registry to be a sub-registry of the
> well-known URI registry. I'm concerned that if adopted as common
> practice, this will make crowd the well-known URI registry with a
> number of application-specific sub-registries. As such my (fairly
> strong) preference would be for this registry to be separate from it.
So rather than asking for a sub-registry, you'd like us to just establish a
registry.
<t>
IANA is requested to create a new Registry entitled: "BRSKI
well-known URIs".
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
last-call mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
