>> MAJOR: > >> Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7.2 seem to have a misunderstanding of EST CSR >> Attrs, which were recently explained by Dan Harkins on the LAMPS WG >> mail list: > > In light of this, I agree. > > We will have to figure out how to communicate to the client/pledge the > desired subjectAltName. This part is inherited from RFC8995. > > In the meantime, do you have any other major comments/concerns?
My point is that we need to make the handling of CSR Attrs consistent all of these specifications, and a deeper dive into this document is not useful until that higher-level approach is figured out. Russ _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
