Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> Here is a circumstance one could easily imagine, and in fact we
> attempted to address in draft-lear-eap-teap-brski:
> Client requires a new certificate for some reason or another. Perhaps
> its is about to expire, or perhaps the signer has been compromised, or
> what have you.
I think that's a really bad example. I can talk about the reasons, but I
think it would detract from your query.
Maybe you can give me a different use case?
> We were thinking that we could use the Request-Action Frame for this
> purpose with a type of PKCS#10. But that now seems wrong, as the
> language in the draft states that one appends a Request-Action frame
> with a full TLV, and not just a type, and further that the other end
> process the TLV. In looking at Jouni’s code, he is doing precisely
> that with the PAC TLV.
> And so it seems we have three choices:
> Create a new TLV that has a length of two that can be used in a
REQUEST_ACTION frame.
> Create a new TLV that is what we thought we meant: here is a list of
> two(ish)-byte types whose TLVs I want you to send to me.
> Hard code the ordering of requests so everyone knows what to expect.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
