Rob Wilton \(rwilton\) <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for this work. I found this document informative and both > easy to read and understand. I have a one question on this document > and a few nits listed below.
> My main question concerns this sentence in section 3.1:
> "[I-D.gutmann-scep] is one method which vendors may want to strongly
> consider."
> It looks like the IESG comments associated with I-D.gutmann-scep
> suggests that this is being documented for historical reasons and
> probably is no longer recommended practice. Hence, I was wondering
> whether it is appropriate to recommend or even reference it?
It did get published as an RFC a week or so ago.
It has been been used extensively in the industry for two decades.
I think it is reasonable to consider it.
(And I'm not a fan of it)
It's a protocol to consider, along with EST, and CMP, depending upon what you
otherwise use.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
