Jim Schaad wrote:
> That sounds like a good plan forward. Are you also going to need an early
> registration on the multipart-core draft as well?
yes, it would be nice, ... we think that it's CORE's problem to adopt the
draft and ask for that.
The multipart response is only need for
That sounds like a good plan forward. Are you also going to need an early
registration on the multipart-core draft as well?
Jim
From: Peter van der Stok
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 3:07 AM
To: Carsten Bormann
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig ; core ;
ace@ietf.org; Jim Schaad ;
Good. Having resolved this, I believe we should be in position to do a release
addressing the WGLC comments this week.
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From: Ace On Behalf Of Ludwig Seitz
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:14 AM
To: ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re:
On 2018-06-20 08:57, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi Jim,
I had a chat with Mike about relaxing the CWT-PoP spec to allow multiple
PoP keys in a single CWT token.
He is concerned about the departure from RFC 7800 and, after giving it a
bit more thoughts, I believe there is an issue. Initially,
Hi Jim,
I had a chat with Mike about relaxing the CWT-PoP spec to allow multiple PoP
keys in a single CWT token.
He is concerned about the departure from RFC 7800 and, after giving it a bit
more thoughts, I believe there is an issue. Initially, when we started the work
our promise was that
