> On Mar 31, 2022, at 12:20 PM, Brockhaus, Hendrik > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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: That is consistent with the discussion lat week. Russ _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
