> Yes, I think so. Created an issue for this (https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/issues/285) and I'll do a PR for this.
Esko -----Original Message----- From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2023 13:12 To: Esko Dijk <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-22.txt Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > Would it be solved by just dropping the claims that we Update / Extend > 8366bis? Instead we can just reference 8366bis and say we add something > to that format. Then we don't need to Update 8366 anymore, because > 8366bis is already doing this for us. Yes, I think so. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS* _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
