I am not sure what to do about this in general, but i think the really important issue is that we ask for support of SNI in BRSKI cloud to support actual cloud deployment (with shared IP address) of registrars, when pledges only have TLS 1.2 - because RFC8995 did not require it.
So, i did open: https://github.com/anima-wg/brski-cloud/issues/134 For any other cases, lets hope Michael and I can sort through this - but i am pretty sure there are no crucial deployment issues beside the BRSKI cloud one (crossing finger ;-)) Cheers toerless On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:45:24AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Rob Wilton \(rwilton\) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Was there any conclusion of what to do here, which I think applies to > > errata 6648: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=6648 > > > I don't think that this is an errata that can be verified, hence I'm > > questioning whether "Held for document update" would be both correct > > and helpful. Would it be useful to update the text of the errata at > > all, or alternatively, I could just point to this thread in the notes. > > I wrote that errata based upon some discussion at some point about > implementing things, and probably my > draft-richardson-anima-registrar-considerations. > > **The SNI comment is really the Technical update part** > > I'd like the XML to be patched, so whatever gets that done. > > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > -- --- [email protected] _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
