Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > a) Just because this draft does not extend ONE part of rfc8366 (YANG), > it does extend the second > normative part of rfc8366, which is the encoding: rfc8366 only has > CMS, with this update > draft, voucher can have CMS or JOSE.
It's not "extends" though. We don't change the YANG, and we don't change the
CMS.
This would be akin to say that UDP extends TCP, when it just lives next to it.
> Citing Mirjams draft:
> "Some other groups
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that is us, ANIMA ?!
> use the update tag to define optional extensions
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that is our situation
> or use of extension points in the current protocol. "
> Agreed ?
Well, at this point, we only get to say "Updates" or Not. And clearly we do
need to say "Updates", and we can add text somewhere to explain what it updates.
> Given how Mirjams draft is not going anywhere fast, my (13)
> was proposing to simply have that short, two line "rfc8366 update"
> chapter saying what is being updates (optional new signing encoding
> and new privacy considerations). This qualifies exactly what type
> of update this RFC will be.
Yes, that's what we are obligated to do now anyway.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
