> Von: Russ Housley <[email protected]> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. März 2022 19:53 > > > 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
Would it also be sufficient to have only one additional registry "CMP Well-Known URI Path Segments" containing the arbitrary label 'p' and the operation labels? Hendrik _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
