Great, thanks. Sounds good. I think the only problem here was in terminology, not technical, so seems like this will fix it.
David (as individual) On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Cullen Jennings <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes - as David say. There was a bunch of confusion in the draft over the two > terms and we have been trying to catch them all and fix it. This version will > moved it to enrollment server. > > On Jan 21, 2010, at 10:50 PM, David A. Bryan wrote: > >> I believe in this context the two terms (credential server and >> enrollment server) mean the same thing. It should probably be >> clarified in the document. >> >> David (as individual) >> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Sun Chongwei <[email protected]> wrote: >>> hi everyone >>> I have a puzzle after reading the fallowing contents in base-06 draft. >>> in the 1st paragraph of 10.3 Page.115 >>> "A peer which does not yet have credentials MUST contact the credential >>> server to acquire them" >>> in the 1st paragraph of 3.6.2 Page. 28 >>> "In that case,the configuration document will to contain the address of an >>> enrollement server which can be used to obtain such a certificate" >>> but in configuration file issued in 10.1, there is only "credential-server" >>> item, no enrolment server. >>> How could the node know the enrollment server's address? >>> -- >>> Sun Chongwei >>> Mobile LIfe and New Media Lab >>> Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> P2PSIP mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> P2PSIP mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > > Cullen Jennings > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html > > > > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
