Sheng Jiang <[email protected]> wrote: > However, with my chair hat on, I am a little bit concern regarding to > whether we have enough expertise to do this well within ANIMA WG. By > the definition of ANIMA, we are focusing on autonomic procedures in > network operation and management. I am not sure whether we can get > enough reviewers to guarantee the quality of this type of format > definition.
ANIMA is chartered to work on BRSKI extensions. If the WG chairs would prefer to move that work to another WG (IOTOPS for instance), then I'm sure that a discussion with the ADs could occur. This document just uses JOSE. It doesn't extend it in anyway. You don't need to know JOSE much, anymore than you have to know CMS or COSE (less). It also doesn't extend RFC8366, but all the experts on that document are in this WG. An option that the WG could consider is if it wants to merge this work into an RFC8366bis. There are positives and negatives about such a thing. -- 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
