On 26-Jul-23 09:06, Michael Richardson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> That makes sense, but it probably needs to be normatively specified,
> which would avoid any need to change RFC 8995, except perhaps an
> erratum to delete that "(list of)" wart.
I didn't get the "(list of)" wart...
objective-value = text ; name of the (list of) supported
; protocols: "EST-TLS" for RFC 7030.
>> (IP addresses could change not because different machines, but because
>> in IPv6, why not, and it also makes use of containers easier) I regret
>> we didn't write "BRSKI_EST" on the first one. I am asking now if we
>> should have a registry for this. It could be RFC Required, as at this
>> point, everything is in WG documents. Since we are doing this in std
>> track documents (so they get the ultimate considerations, of IESG
>> action, in effect), the value of the registry is that it lets people
>> find the document that goes with the value.
> Yes, makes sense.
okay, where do we register it?
constrained-voucher?
Seems logical.
Brian
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
