Hi Ranga, The IETF doesn't have a good way to capture improvement suggestions such as this. Perhaps you could file an Errata suggesting a small tweak that would improve the text a little. Even if the errata is rejected, it will still live forever in the tracker and undoubtedly reviewed if ever an update to the RFC is being considered.
Kent // co-author > On Feb 19, 2019, at 1:09 PM, M. Ranganathan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 6:55 AM Toerless Eckert <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Ranga, > > It depends ;-) > > Pledge P registers at a specific registrar B. B examines the audit log and > determines that P was previously registered at another registrar A. Now > B can see from theidentity of A in the audit log if A belongs to the > same trust domain as B. If yes, then B would likely happily re-register > P. Use-case: A failed and was replaced by B, or multiple registrars in > the trust domain. Alternative, A is not known to be in the same trust > domain by B, so B would refuse to register P, probably raise an > exception to operations. In this case, i could come up with a range of > use case examples what operations would do next. > > Does this help ? > > Cheers > Toerless > > > HI Toerless, > > Yes that clarifies things and in line with the mental picture I had built in > my mind. Perhaps it would be a good idea to clarify the document with an > explanation like you have stated above.. > > Thanks, > > Ranga > > > P.S.: Experimenting if the old alias for the co-authors still work. I > think IETF tools keep it alife for a few years. > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 02:21:57PM -0500, M. Ranganathan wrote: > > Clarification on question below: > > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 11:22 AM M. Ranganathan <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I am reading the voucher artifact RFC 8366. I am confused about how the > > > "audit voucher" (page 6) is supposed to be used. Specifically, the text > > > says " The registrar mitigates a MiTM registrar by auditing that an > > > unknown MiTM registrar does not appear in the log entries. " How can it do > > > this? Any concrete example that clarifies this use case would help me > > > understand. > > > > > > > > What is confusing me is the interpretation of the term "Man In The Middle" > > (MiTM). Am I correct in assuming that this refers to previous registrars > > where the device may have successfully registered? > > > > > > > I am not sure if this is the correct mailing list for this question. > > > Thanks in advance for your help. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Ranga > > > > > > -- > > > M. Ranganathan > > > > > > > > > > -- > > M. Ranganathan > > > _______________________________________________ > > Anima mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima> > > > -- > M. Ranganathan > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
