{fixing quoting. I had no idea what Alvaro wanted to say otherwise}
Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> wrote:
alvaro> (3) s/The serialNumber fields is defined in [RFC5280], and is a
alvaro> SHOULD field in [IDevID]./The serialNumber field is defined in
[RFC5280], and is a
alvaro> recommended field in [IDevID]. Note that SHOULD is not used
alvaro> properly here because it does not have a Normative quality (as it
alvaro> refers to the other document). I'm assuming that the replacement
alvaro> is "recommended" (per rfc2119), but it may be "required".
mcr> 802.1AR says it is SHOULD. We need to increase this to MUST.
mcr> RECOMMENDED is a synonym for SHOULD according to 2119.
mcr> REQUIRED is a synonym for MUST, so if I changed it to REQUIRED then it
would
mcr> still be a problem according to your thinking...?
mcr> So I could reword as:
mcr> IDevID certificates for use with this protocol are REQUIRED to
mcr> include the "serialNumber" attribute with the device's unique
mcr> serial number (from [IDevID] section 7.2.8, and [RFC5280] section
mcr> 4.1.2.4's list of standard attributes).
mcr> which might be an easier read. Please let me know if I am
mis-understanding
mcr> you.
alvaro> The original text sounded as if you were characterizing the field
alvaro> specified in rfc5280.
alvaro> The new text specifies that the serialNumber MUST be there. If
that is
alvaro> what you meant from the start, then I’m ok with it. :-)
So you prefer the reworded text, and I will use that in -29.
--
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
