Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > Based on our writing and implementation experience so far for > draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher, I see some opportunity to > simplify and streamline the main procedure and its description. The > idea is to have one main flow description that relies a lot on sensible > defaults, and move any "alternatives" or "extras", or "special cases" > to separate sections in the end of the document. That should make it > more comprehensible for those wanting to implement the basic > constrained BRSKI method and also improve interoperability.
I have no objection to doing this. I don't think I can do it though :-)
The document has been sliced and diced a lot over five years, and I agree
could use a total rewrite.
> See https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/issues/269 for
> Github issue created for this. I could create a PR to show how it may
> look like.
> Any opinions on this?
I prefer to get it done sooner than done better, but not everyone will agree
with that.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
