On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 03:59:08PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote: > On 3/22/2016 9:47 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >>On 22 Mar 2016, at 09:10, Juergen Schoenwaelder > >><j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > >> > >>On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: > >>>Hi Kent, > >>> > >>>Thanks for the pointer. The zeroconf draft is cool beans to be sure. > >>>That describes an enrollment mechanism for devices that make use of > >>>802.1AR. Very ANIMAesque. What I'm suggesting, and perhaps it's a bit > >>>late for this draft, is just a statement in this draft along the lines > >>>that "signing and verifying happens at the JSON level; see [ref] for how > >>>to do it", and for extra credit an example would be exceedingly cool. > >>>That way we as developers know what to do (again, I'm neither a JSON nor > >>>netmod expert - just trying to make use of what's there for what I am > >>>expert at (or so I think)). > >>> > >>This I-D is an object encoding specification. Why would this document > >>have to talk about possible object signatures? > >+1 > > > >These issues are important but they should IMO be dealt with separately. > Ok. Where should it be described? RFC6087bis? >
I think such considerations belongs into documents making use of object signatures and close to 100% of the YANG models today don't so I do not even think this qualifies for RFC6087bis. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
