t...@cs.fau.de wrote:
> plant would often want to have a combination of both scenarios:
> The manufacturing plant might prefer to not be connected to the
> Internet (== scenario 1) AND pledges want to be of the type defined
> via Scenario 2.
Will we be able to avoid normative
A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Toerless T. Eckert, a
Chair of the anima working group.
-
Working Group Name: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach
Area Name: Operations and Management Area
Session
Michael:
For the joint picture that shows the async points both in the frontent (pledge)
as well as backend (Registrar) together, which document should that go into ?
I am mostly worried that we understand how the case where you have both
async points toether will work.
Cheers
Toerless
On
Ryan Sleevi wrote:
rs> I mean, there's
rs> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4210#section-4.4, but that's
rs> more or less unsupported, and would strongly recommend against it:
rs> the _key_ rollover creates vast issues with implementations.
That's the section I was
Hi Toerless, hi Michael
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Richardson
> Sent: Freitag, 3. September 2021 19:09
>
> t...@cs.fau.de wrote:
> > plant would often want to have a combination of both scenarios:
> > The manufacturing plant might prefer to not be connected to the
>
Hello,
On 9/3/21 10:00 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
I'm unclear if CMP allows for a standardized way to override the CSR
contents, or if it simply provides more authority for the RA to create a new
CSR of its own.
Well not really override, more like augment. As I understand it, the
Eliot Lear wrote:
> I think the issue is that RFC 7030 references RFC 4210. And
> enterprises may indeed roll their CAs for a myriad of reasons, not the
> least of which could be mergers, mishandled private keys, and planned
> changes,. So some advice may be needed here, if
t...@cs.fau.de wrote:
> For the joint picture that shows the async points both in the frontent
> (pledge) as well as backend (Registrar) together, which document should
> that go into ?
I think that this is fluid question.
> I am mostly worried that we understand how the case
I'm unclear if CMP allows for a standardized way to override the CSR
contents, or if it simply provides more authority for the RA to create a new
CSR of its own.
While I would also prefer to enhance the RA/CA protocol, I'm not entirely
keen on mechanisms that break the original PoP.
Anyway, we
{Trimming massive CC to just lists}
Dan Harkins wrote:
>> While I would also prefer to enhance the RA/CA protocol, I'm not
>> entirely keen on mechanisms that break the original PoP.
> Agreed, but keep in mind that the CA has no idea whether the
> challengePassword field is
10 matches
Mail list logo
