Thank you Michael for rising the questions. > Von: Anima <[email protected]> Im Auftrag von Michael Richardson > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. März 2022 17:48 > > > We were discussing the /.well-known/cmp that is in being proposed in > draft-ietf- > lamps-cmp-updates, We were comparing it to /.well-known/brski and /.well- > known/est. > > Question 2) > Should the CMP document be establishing a registry or not? > As discussed during IETF 113 I plan to do these things in CMP Updates - register 'cmp' in the "Well-Known URIs" registry - define a protocol registry group "Certificate Management Protocol (CMP)" - define a registry for "CMP Well-Known Arbitrary Label URI Segments" defining 'p' to be followed by a <profileLabel>. In addition I would define a registry for "CMP Well-Known Operation Label URI Segments" in Lightweight CMP Profile containing the path segments defined three for http and coap use.
Does this makes sense? Hendrik _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
