On Apr 04, 2014, at 15:47, Geoff Huston wrote:
>>
>> The authors of RFC 6487 can speak for themselves, but I think their
>> intent was to avoid requests for "vanity names" (CN="Joe's Pizza"
>> instead of CN="4DF2D88957372FF9FDA05C70F2D9E8BA334CFF89"), which could
>> be construed as eroding claim
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)
wrote:
> Sandra,
>
> I support this document moving forward to the IESG.
>
> I read the document as part of the WGLC process and I believe the text is
> ready for publication.
>
> My only question is a formality from Section 3 that says:
>
> Would it make sense to have the name that goes in the router
> certificate then be something like “ROUTER-#-32_bit_BGP_Identifier”
> where the # gets incremented everytime there’s a new key? For those
> that love hard coded lengths this might be an issue if the # grows,
> but is that the only dr
On May 12, 2014, at 16:03, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Would it make sense to have the name that goes in the router
>> certificate then be something like “ROUTER-#-32_bit_BGP_Identifier”
>> where the # gets incremented everytime there’s a new key? For those
>> that love hard coded lengths this might be
Wes,
Randy and I bashed some text around; would this work:
When it is decided that an active router key is to be revoked, the
process of requesting the CA to revoke, the process of the CA
actually revoking the router’s certificate, and then the process of
rekeying/renewing the router’s certificat