Fries, Steffen <[email protected]> wrote: >> <[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.
As soon I get back to the Shepherd review (sometime later tonight perhaps),
then I hope that we'll get into WGLC.
>> 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.
BRSKI is an extension of EST.
Making it an extension of CMP would be a different protocol.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
