> On 1. Mar 2018, at 02:06, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 01/03/2018 11:46, Michael Richardson wrote: > ... >>> Even though the BRSKI document is already advanced, we would like to >>> propose to also include CMP as further example for certificate >>> enrollment in BRSKI. This inclusion would make it also easier for other >>> standards or frameworks to consider security bootstrapping based on >>> BRSKI. >> >> I think that it would be very difficult to hack CMP into the BRSKI document >> at this point. > > As a matter of principle, it seems better to get BRSKI published as quickly > as possible to meet the WG milestone, and then publish any extensions as > separate documents. I was looking into the charter and based on the date of the initial draft of the document I somehow feared that the document is already in the final state. I did not find an expected timeline on when the draft is expected to be finalized.
> > It seems like a good idea to work on such extensions. But one step > at a time :-). We came up with the proposal as the current title of the document gives the impression, that BRSKI would solely work with EST as it is the only example stated. As we see different use cases, which already target CMP, we thought it would be good to cover it in the base document. If the schedule of the document is that tight, then an extension in terms of a separate document might be the way to go. Steffen > > Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
