HI Fred, MIP NAI structure is some what designed for carrying an identifier that can be represented in a simple structure. It is bound by the 1-octet size limit defined in RFC6275. X.509 is a complex structure, it includes the signed public key, serial number and number of other parameters and based on the key size it can be in Kbytes. Wondering, why a simple DHCP Client Identifier is not sufficient here. Support for EUI based identifiers is already present and that allows us to map to DHCP client identifiers ?
Regards Sri From: "Templin, Fred L" <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com<mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>> Date: Monday, July 13, 2015 at 10:50 AM To: Charlie Perkins <charles.perk...@earthlink.net<mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com<mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>, jouni korhonen <jouni.nos...@gmail.com<mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Charlie Perkins <charlie.perk...@huawei.com<mailto:charlie.perk...@huawei.com>> Subject: RE: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Hi, I would like to suggest one additional identifier before publication: X.509 certificate as per Section 5.2 of Secure DHCPv6: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-08.txt Thanks – Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com<mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charlie Perkins Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 7:45 PM To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); jouni korhonen; dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>; Charlie Perkins Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Hello folks, The last discussion about the document was related to whether or not Vehicle ID should be included in the draft. No resolution was reached for that discussion. However, the draft may still be considered ready for publication. Other ID formats can certainly be added in the future. Regards, Charlie P. On 7/9/2015 6:30 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: I can review and provide comments. I think its ready for publication, may be after a minor edit. From: dmm <dmm-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of jouni korhonen <jouni.nos...@gmail.com<mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 1:49 PM To: "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Charlie Perkins <charlie.perk...@huawei.com<mailto:charlie.perk...@huawei.com>> Subject: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Charlie, WG, In last IETF and slightly after that there was discussion about missing MN-IDs in the current -00 version. Have these been or rather will these be addressed? I'd like to move this trivial document forward. - Jouni & Dapeng _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
