Thanks Michael. Should Section 8.1 now be removed as well? Alissa
> On Dec 16, 2019, at 2:56 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > {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 =- > > > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
