{Hi Tom, I don't quite understand, but I don't seem to get emails directly
From you. Or perhaps it has to do with it being posted through the
datatracker. This is not the first review I have missed in this way.}We had forgotten about the content of Appendix C, which is not normative. It stems from an era when we were not sure how successful RFC8520 will be. I have issued version -31 in which we remove Appendix C rather than fix it. This extension could be added correctly at a later date, and at this point, we don't see the MUD FILE->MASA URL flow as particularly important. Both URLs can be in the IDevID if needed, at the cost of bytes in the IDevID certificate. I think that there are operational problems with embedding the MUD URL in the IDevID relating to firmware upgrades, nor is that related to this appendix. It is not a BRSKI issue, but it does mean that the likelyhood of a MUD URL being the only extension that can be afforded an IDevID is significantly less likely. -- 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
