{I'm don't think the extensive CC is useful or productive}
I think that the question we need to answer today, is whether the lack of
perceived clarity is a problem that **RFC8366bis** should fix.We can change/update/extend the YANG description, and/or add text to another part of 8366bis explaining when idevid-issuer is needed. (It's not a BRSKI-only situation, I think. I think that the same considerations apply to SZTP...) Basically, this does come down to that SubjectDNs are not absolute, they depend upon the trust anchor. In 1980s X.400/X.500's fantasy, there was only going to be one global trust anchor, and strong Path Constraints would keep subordinate CAs in line. (does that sounds like an Admiral Tarkin line from _A New Hope_...?) -- 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]
