Hi Michael, > From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> > > I would appreciate to use /.well-known/brski for the endpoints > > specified in BRSKI and use /.well-known/est for those specified in > > RFC7030. > > This offers more flexibility for future extensions like BSKI-AE. > > Such a change would be large to BRSKI. > > Brian suggests making this an update. > But, I think it would cause market confusion if we published an RFC with > /.well-known/est/requestvoucher, and then said, "no sorry, no we meant > /.well-known/brski/requestvoucher" > > Would there be pledge implementations that would try one and then the > other? > I will say that I'm *NOT* keen on including the Resource Link GET, but I can > tolerate it. The intention was not to include the discovery mechanism right away into BRSKI. It was rather the question to rename the BRSKI defined endpoints to /.well-known/brski to underline, that the voucher exchange is independent from the chosen enrollment protocol. The discovery should be done in BRSKI-AE, which should update the base specification then. I understand, that we should not state /.well-known/est and the immediately update it afterwards to /.well-known/brski . That would look awkward. If we just rename the endpoints in BRSKI, would that cause such a large change?
Best regards Steffen > > > I think that we'd need to: > 1) blessing of our AD. > 2) pull document out of RFC-editor queue. > 3) revise it, do a WGLC on revision. > 4) get AD to put it back in queue. > > The ROLL WG did this for a document last year when we realized that a new > document obsoleted some of the recommendations. It took longer than > planned, but that was partly because the other document had to settle a bit. > I think we could do this in the time for the 2nd WGLC and about four days. > > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
