first, I reposted
Name: draft-richardson-anima-state-for-joinrouter
Revision: 03It was done during the early days of BRSKI to collect some options in, but was never intended to be published. I think that the reference.XXX file disappeared. second, I have edited Name: draft-vanderstok-anima-constrained-join-proxy Revision: 04 Title: Constrained Join Proxy for Bootstrapping Protocols Document date: 2020-09-22 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 20 URL: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-vanderstok-anima-constrained-join-proxy-04.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vanderstok-anima-constrained-join-proxy/ Html: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-vanderstok-anima-constrained-join-proxy-04.html Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanderstok-anima-constrained-join-proxy-04 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-vanderstok-anima-constrained-join-proxy-04 a bunch and reposted it. I have changed occurances of EST Server to "BRSKI Registrar", as I think that is more accurate. Did we really want to standardize the StateFUL join proxy? Is it really interesting or relevant? It seems trivial. If we are, then we should contrast it. An important clue is that it does not behave any differently, FROM THE PLEDGE point of view. The WG had expressed an interest in adopting this document, but the WG chairs have not provided any clear guidance on where they we go. This document could be merged into ietf-constrained-voucher, but I think we made it a separate document because it is not needed on all networks, just *constrained* multihop/MESH networks. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
