> On Apr 1, 2022, at 02:25, Brockhaus, Hendrik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> 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
When the /.well-known/est/ was registered we only did the top level, i.e., /est/. There are no registries for the /.well-known/est/*this part*. It’s not clear to me that you need to do anything more than get /.well-known/cmp. What will be the registration policy [0] for the ‘p’ values? I assume FCFS (first come first served)? spt [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8126/ _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
