Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I definitely recommend replacing lower-case "may" in a case like
> the one below.
Agreed.
> Perhaps:
>>> , and MUST NOT be
>>> enabled unless the JRC indicates support for them
Changed.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6
Final comments/actions on Toerless' awesome review.
The -13 is coming out soon, but we have 13 issues to resolve still.
>
-
> Section 8)
> a) First paragraph: Unvailable MASA is not a security but an
> o
Comments on section 5, 6 and 7.
> --
> Section 5.4
> a) See comment for section 2.4.4 for where i think the first paragraph
> description should be.
There isn't a 2.4.4, so I'm not really sure I understand wh
MAX: please look for your name.
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Section 5)
> a) Suggest changing the title to "Protocol Details (Pledge - Registrar
> - MASA / CA)"
> to distinguish from Section 4. Might consider also to move up section
renamed.
> b) MASA URI is "https:// authorit
>
-
> Section 4. 1)
> a.1) Suggest to change title to "Proxying Details (Plege - Proxy -
> Registrar)" because the section does not only discuss the proxy but
> also the aspects/reqirements of proxyin
Sunday I was skiing (it didn't rain!) and this morning I was distracted by
another urgent matter, so I'll get another two hours to work on this now, and
then I'll post a new version of the draft before the deadline.
It is unlikely that I'll get through all your suggested edits, and I still
need t
On 05/03/2018 00:04, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not Max but I hope you won't mind me commenting in three places:
>
>
> On 02.03.18 23:59, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>> Section 2.1
>>> a) The term "Request Join" is only used here, and its IMHO not very logical
>>> (disclaimer: toerless: en
Hi,
I'm not Max but I hope you won't mind me commenting in three places:
On 02.03.18 23:59, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Section 2.1
>> a) The term "Request Join" is only used here, and its IMHO not very logical
>> (disclaimer: toerless: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESL). It sounds to me like the
>> pl
I would ideally like to begin the WGLC once I've posted the revised document
and then take any of your issues that I wasn't able to resolve as last call
comments (open issues on tools or github).
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> d)
> I am missing in the initial chapters a succinct summary how E
Max, please search for QUESTION.
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> 1.) Introduction
>
> a) The intro of 1. is somehat confusing to the uninitiated.
>
> Suggest the followinf replacement text for two paragraps:
>
> BRSKI provides a solution for secure zero-touch (automated) bootstrap of
> virgin (untouche
"may" is an ambiguous word in English, and is probably the main reason
we have RFC2119.
"It may rain today." == "Rain is possible today."
"You may shake my hand." ==
either
(a) "I permit you to shake my hand."
or
(b) "It is physically possible that you will shake my hand."
"You may not shake
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:00:10PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Yes, that in the thread, where I referred to a thread back in January 2017,
> in which you were involved in coming up with the names.
>
> >> + , and may be
> >> + enabled only if the JRC indicates support for them
Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> "Registrar". The term JRC is used in common with other bootstrap
>> mechanisms.
>>
>> + (Public) Key Infrastructure: The collection of systems and processes
>> + that sustain the activities of a public key system. In an ANIMA
>> + A
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 02:45:12AM +, Max Pritikin (pritikin) wrote:
>
> The MASA is a certifier of vouchers. A voucher isn???t really a PKI construct
> today. Its more of a distribution of trust-anchor or ???pinned cert???
> construct used to bootstrap a PKI because the PKI???s don???t have
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Thanks, Michael
> Can't see a commit on github since 6 dyays ago, maybe in different branch
?
> Comments for now therefore inline against your email.
Yeah, it's on the toerless-terminology-comments branch.
About to be in -11.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandel
> On Feb 20, 2018, at 7:38 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> Thanks, Michael
> Can't see a commit on github since 6 dyays ago, maybe in different branch ?
> Comments for now therefore inline against your email.
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 07:54:40PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> Toerles
Thanks, Michael
Can't see a commit on github since 6 dyays ago, maybe in different branch ?
Comments for now therefore inline against your email.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 07:54:40PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > Overall:
>
> > a) Requirements about EST:
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Overall:
> a) Requirements about EST:
> - The introduction says: "Integration with a complete EST enrollment is
> optional but trivial"
> - 5.8.3 says "The Pledge MUST request a new client certificate".
> - 1.4 says "bootstrapped devices have a c
I always welcome, support and root for removal, avoidance and rephrasing of
redundant, unnecessary, confusing, contradicting or otherwise irritating words,
sentences, phrases or other elements of IETF drafts.
I just reserve the right to be pretty bad at it myself, given how i was raised
with a lan
Max Pritikin (pritikin) wrote:
>>> b) Key infrastructure
>>
>>> There is no definition/reference for this term. Please describe on
>>> first use and in terminology. Is there a difference
>>> between "key infrastructure" and "keying material" ? If not, then
>>> maybe
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 05:32:30PM +, Max Pritikin (pritikin) wrote:
> Certificates are a data format for encoding public keys and associated
> certifications (e.g. the CA signature) etc. I think this could reasonably be
> called data needed to establish a cryptographic security association.
> On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:06:33PM +, Max Pritikin (pritikin) wrote:
b) Key infrastructure
>>>
There is no definition/reference for this term. Please describe on
first use and in terminology. Is there a differenc
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:06:33PM +, Max Pritikin (pritikin) wrote:
> >> b) Key infrastructure
> >
> >> There is no definition/reference for this term. Please describe on
> >> first use and in terminology. Is there a difference
> >> between "key infrastructure" and "keying material" ? If
> On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:45 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>
> Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> 1.2) Terminology:
>
>> a) vendor vs. manufacturer.
>
>> The document uses 48 times "vendor" and 13 times "manufacturer". Please
>> revisit this: If there is a clear reason when/why to use vendor and whe
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> 1.2) Terminology:
> a) vendor vs. manufacturer.
> The document uses 48 times "vendor" and 13 times "manufacturer". Please
> revisit this: If there is a clear reason when/why to use vendor and
when/why
> to use the term "manufacturer", then please pu
Hi Toerless,
thanks for this reminder about terminology in keyinfra.
I have made several attempts at explaining the authors the possible
misunderstandings on terminology.
Let's hope your input helps.
I will look at your other comments later this week.
Peter
b) Key infrastructure
There is
Shepherd review against -09.
Did just browse through -10, i think it is orthogonal to the comments below.
Document is IMHO overall in very good shape!
Sorry for length, but i was trying to minimize the number of RTT to resolve
comments
by trying to explain my comments as good as possible.
In m
27 matches
Mail list logo
