> Von: Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. April 2022 19:32 > > On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 10:36:01PM -0400, Sean Turner wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 2022, at 02:25, Brockhaus, Hendrik > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Von: Russ Housley <[email protected]> > > >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. März 2022 19:53 > > >> > > >>> On Mar 31, 2022, at 12:20 PM, Brockhaus, Hendrik > > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Thank you Michael for rising the questions. > > >>> > > >>>> Von: Anima <[email protected]> Im Auftrag von Michael > > >>>> Richardson > > >>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. März 2022 17:48 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> We were discussing the /.well-known/cmp that is in being proposed > > >>>> in > > >>>> draft-ietf- lamps-cmp-updates, We were comparing it to > > >>>> /.well-known/brski and /.well- known/est. > > >>>> > > >>>> Question 2) > > >>>> Should the CMP document be establishing a registry or not? > > >>>> > > >>> As discussed during IETF 113 I plan to do these things in CMP > > >>> Updates > > >>> - register 'cmp' in the "Well-Known URIs" registry > > >>> - define a protocol registry group "Certificate Management Protocol > (CMP)" > > >>> - define a registry for "CMP Well-Known Arbitrary Label URI Segments" > > >> defining 'p' to be followed by a <profileLabel>. > > >>> In addition I would define a registry for "CMP Well-Known > > >>> Operation Label URI > > >> Segments" in Lightweight CMP Profile containing the path segments > > >> defined three for http and coap use. > > >>> > > >>> Does this makes sense? > > >> > > >> Hendrik: > > >> > > >> That is consistent with the discussion lat week. > > >> > > >> Russ > > > > > > Would it also be sufficient to have only one additional registry "CMP > > > Well- > Known URI Path Segments" containing the arbitrary label 'p' and the operation > labels? > > > > > > Hendrik > > > > When the /.well-known/est/ was registered we only did the top level, i.e., > /est/. There are no registries for the /.well-known/est/*this part*. It’s > not clear > to me that you need to do anything more than get /.well-known/cmp. > > > > What will be the registration policy [0] for the ‘p’ values? I assume FCFS > > (first > come first served)? > > I had assumed that we were just registering the value 'p' in a single combined > registry of CMP operations and path labels, but that the stuff after 'p' was > site- > local and did not need to be registered. (Though a FCFS registry for them is > not > wrong.) > > -Ben
Ben, thank you for clarifying this. This is also my understanding and I am about to update the drafts accordingly. Hendrik _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
