> Von: Ace <[email protected]> Im Auftrag von Benjamin Kaduk > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 04:31:05PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > > Mohit Sahni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To give some background, this draft is an extension of Light Weight > > CMP > > > Profile ( > > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf. > org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile- > 02&data=02%7C01%7Chendrik.brockhaus%40siemens.com%7Cc3b352cdfd > 174b0a7e2008d82dc1484f%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C > 0%7C637309655452109222&sdata=QWHu3IEwf4TIIpaW0cvKuMiGXixV1AX > dws6g0vBQJPY%3D&reserved=0) > > > draft currently under development in the LAMPS WG. We discussed the > "CMPv2 > > > over CoAP" draft in the LAMPS WG and figured out that ACE WG is a > more > > > appropriate place for this draft. However, Jim suggested that we will > need > > > to modify the charter of the ACE WG to adopt this draft. > > > > We did est-over-coaps [still in the queue], why shouldn't we do cmp-over- > coap(s)? > > It may just be that "est-over-coaps is so obviously us" that I didn't check > the > charter carefully at that time. But, at this point, we're probably overdue > for a > recharter anyway, as the core framework is making its way to the IESG. >
Steffen and I discussed this with Jim last year in Prague, if I remember correctly, and he recommended to submit cmp-over-coap to ACE and not to LAMPS. As est-over-coaps was in scope of ACE, I also think it is quite obvious to discuss cmp-over-coap in ACE. Looking into Mohits draft, cmp-over-coap is much simpler than est-over-coaps, as CMP does not need any binding to an underlying (D)TLS handshake. If you think this needs rechartering, we should go for it. - Hendrik _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
