> On Jun 29, 2021, at 8:36 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> wrote:
>> An RFC8366bis is the right option. If the changes are minor then I may
>> be able to ease the passage through the IESG, but I can't do much to
>> affect the elapsed time.
If considering a bis, can we consider changing the "pinned-domain-cert” node
from a X.509v3 cert to a “choice” between that and a chain of certs?
In particular, from:
+---- pinned-domain-cert binary
To:
+---- (domain-cert-format)
+---- pinned-domain-cert binary
+---- pinned-domain-certs binary
Or, better, using ietf-crypto-types:
+---- (domain-cert-format)
+---- pinned-domain-cert ct:end-entity-cert-x509
+---- pinned-domain-certs ct:end-entity-cert-cms
> I will prepare a draft for this week.
>
> I thought I wrote a really nice ASCII art version of what documents inherit
> from RFC8366. I can't find it in my outbox... I wonder if I nuked the draft
> by mistake.
Check this:
https://yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis/?modtags=ietf-voucher%402017-10-25.yang&orgtags=&recursion=0&show_rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=dependents
<https://yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis/[email protected]&orgtags=&recursion=0&show_rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=dependents>
K.
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
