Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> wrote: >>> An RFC8366bis is the right option. If the changes are minor then I may >>> be able to ease the passage through the IESG, but I can't do much to >>> affect the elapsed time.
> If considering a bis, can we consider changing the "pinned-domain-cert”
> node from a X.509v3 cert to a “choice” between that and a chain of
> certs?
Yeah, I think it's a good idea.
Could we also have the choice be a RPK?
> Or, better, using ietf-crypto-types:
:-)
> Check this:
>
https://yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis/?modtags=ietf-voucher%402017-10-25.yang&orgtags=&recursion=0&show_rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=dependents
>
<https://yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis/[email protected]&orgtags=&recursion=0&show_rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=dependents>
Yeah, I knew about that, but others might not.
I was basically trying to distill it down into a few words.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
