{striping IESG, because it would be just noise until the WGs come to some
consensus}Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 10:45:54PM +0100, Michael Richardson wrote: >> Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > You want to do this now? >> After (or your ask was right before) the telechat? >> >> I figured better to ask now than after the telechat was all over. My >> appologies for forgetting this before. >> >> > If you want to do this, I'd like the working group to weigh in (for >> > whatever definition of 'working group' is best - at least lamps, and >> likely > others). >> >> RFC9148 was done by ACE. draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher (aka >> cBRSKI) uses/extends RFC9148. Thus ANIMA and ACE are in the CC. > In my only partially informed opinion there's a decent case for having > draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs update 9418, but if we end up doing > so it would mean writing at least a paragraph more text (and maybe You want more text than Toerless offered? https://github.com/lamps-wg/lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs/pull/59/files > more). I would not be particularly upset if the Updates: relationship > was not added. (It could be done in a separate document later if it > proves needed; I note that the /att path is optional for EST-coaps.) That seems excessive! It's been 10+ days since I posted this thought. Is there anyone who thinks this is a bad idea? -- 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] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
