key, while constrained vouchers are
(optionally) pinned to a Raw Public Key.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca
and other protocols don't just use a certificate, but they use
the related private key to sign part of the transaction.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [
] m...@san
etwork.
So please explain.
> On 12.07.18 17:12, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Eliot Lear wrote:
>> involved. What a manufacturer wants to avoid is a pledge joining a
>> network where the MASA just does the logging and does no validation,
>> withou
I should post under correct name)
How to pick the PANID is not specified yet. Mostly the same as picking an
SSID.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [
] m...@san
the device a second time.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software
") that is different from the MASA's desire.
The MASA *is* the expression manufacturer's desire.
If the manufacturer has sales channel information that indicates the Pledge
is on the wrong network, it should not issue a voucher.
So the situation you describe makes no sense to me.
--
Michael Ri
rmative way of doing things — the conventions
> we use for this may evolve faster than the rest of the technical
> content of draft-ietf-core-sid.
I don't want a prescription either, but rather a BCP that evolves.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting
future values that are not in that registry, a new registry for
> values outside the range 0..255 will be needed.
"not in that registry", and IPV6=41, is in that registry.
While there a bunch which probably are nonsense to use (e.g, PRM)
a bunch are relatively clear: SCTP, RDP
d offices:
> Berlin and Munich, Germany; Commercial registries: Berlin
> Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, Munich, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 23691322
> ___ Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/a
.
If section 2.3.1 should be applied on the pledge, then we should perhaps say
that more clearly in that section.
The VOUCHER YANG says that the field is mandatory.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Descriptio
; again?
I'm not sure, I thought that the objective-value was what we were looking
for. I.e. if some device is trying to find a place to backup 1GB,
then it might have an objective of "KERNEL:DUMP" with an objective-value
of 1073741824.
Since we don't care what the dimension of the objective,
if we have lot a connection to a parent.
The occurance of an IKEv2 negotiation also provides a very strong signal of
that there is a new peer.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network ar
.
If section 2.3.1 should be applied on the pledge, then we should perhaps say
that more clearly in that section.
The VOUCHER YANG says that the field is mandatory.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Descriptio
> So I think the "SHOULD NOT" clause has to go. Perhaps you
> mean:
> This value MUST NOT be used for any future Registration attempt.
Edited as you suggest!
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting
ntries in that list?
> b) It would be good to create subsections for each registray mentioned so
> that one can see from the table of content what registries are impacted.
Don't we already have that?
We are only creating one registry.
> c) Probably need a summary of updates this
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I definitely recommend replacing lower-case "may" in a case like
> the one below.
Agreed.
> Perhaps:
>>> , and MUST NOT be
>>> enabled unless the JRC indicates support for th
two in an appropriate section
> of BRSKI as a very explicit example how BRSKI can be reused outside the
> complete ANIMA scope (also add draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch as an
> informational
> reference).
I would prefer to let ietf-netconf-zerotouch do tha
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/03/2018 08:11, Michael Richardson wrote:
> ...
>>
>> > d) Add section to request brksi-proxy and brski-registrar to
>> > IANA service name registry.
>>
>> I
should be not be signed in any way.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
ns the
> encoded (signed form) of the Pledge voucher-request.
> What is the correct behavior?
I've opened this as issue:
https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/issues/48
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Wo
uchers may be
transported in the [I-D.vanderstok-ace-coap-est] protocol.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anim
e really want people to read 6125, not just guess.
> Aka: for the less PKIX/Websecurity initiated readers like me, writing out
> what is actually implied could make the sentence easier to parse
> (instead of having to read more of RFC6125.
But, I want you to read 6
se networks. Am I more likely to
use ANIMA than HOMENET protocols in *MY* home? Maybe.
That's why we didn't write "home" or "enterprise" networks.
Having said this, there is interest in trying to find a way to make BRSKI
work in a HOMENET. The problem is that X=JRC, and
Fries, Steffen <steffen.fr...@siemens.com> wrote:
>> <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 01/03/2018 11:46, Michael Richardson wrote: ...
>>>> Even though the BRSKI document is already advanced, we would like to
>>&
gt; Section 2.4.3) 1)
> a) Expand CMC. "authenticate any pledge" -> "authenticate (the IDevID
> of) any pledge"
> b) The document is still very vague on terminology to distinguish
> between the initial bootstrap and the (optional) EST server
N fighting to own h'fe80::1234. It seems to me we would have
You are solving a problem that does not exist.
You are right that IPIP is inadequately described at this point.
If only I was accepting a few dozen github pull requests rather than
this hundred page long email...
I wonder if we could reme
o say "is".
> b) There is no text here explaning how a registrar transforms a Pledge
> Voucher request to a Registrar voucher request. If explained later,
> insert a forward reference. Else. pls add text to explain.
I added some text above.
> b) I have my doubts that the flow of the document is ideal wit
ot see how the following sentence is that
> relevant conclusion. But maybe i am too confused by the sentence structure.
I think that it explains why the voucher exists.
> Do you mean something like this:
>
> | Vouchers are signed but not encrypted. This allows registars to maintai
a public
IPv4 and/or IPv6 so that we can get traffic to you.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman
aying, let's not invent a problem before we understand who actually
has the problem and make sure that the people who can solve the problem
are at our table.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
ip-to-holding-company.
Holding company leases to end user for period of time. End user identity
is never communicated back, and might be very much pseudonymous.
I'm thinking about car-rentals, hotel rooms (full of devices), ...
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6
a document
collecting experiences.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
operations if we think it's a good idea to let
the connection persist. (Caveat, we might actually want to log the telemetry
status operation, and perhaps we always return 200 for that)
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
and while we can use a private CT for now, it would be better if we could
sort this out in the next 2 or 3 weeks!
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mai
3, where
it turned to micromanagement...}
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
ed
devices. Supply chain integration ("know your customer") is an
additional step that MASA providers and device vendors can explore.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
sed.
I guess that extension could go into this document.
If 6tisch, then it would use enhanced beacons.
If something else, TBD.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
lain things more?
We call the owner's trust controller the "Registrar", or sometimes the
Join-Registrar/Coordinator. I don't mind calling it a trust controller, but
maybe your term has a different meaning.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
to do it
correctly sooner.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
nt could have better text here.
At one point we discussed an operational considerations document.
Is that really what you are asking for?
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_
| ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing l
.
What we are doing is making it clear that the tractor is actually owned,
and not p0wned. However, I'm not sure that BRSKI has a value for large
devices with real user interfaces. Maybe it has value for implements though.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
s
s, we do not say how they are used.
>> This is a pretty important question and we have discussed it at
>> length. I remain concerned, but as far as I can see, we have this
>> problem already.
> if i understand correctly, it creates a new problem, nee
the APIs that we need to
make it deployable.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
added the "reviewer-agrees" label (if github allows), or at least a THUMBS UP
(which I'm sure github will allow), or you can unicast us.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Descriptio
w the name of the operator.
Note that the later info probably is revealed just by doing the TLS
handshake.
I think that they should be restricted in general, but I'm concerned that
there might be some situation I've missed.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT
henticated /crt and /att? We can certainly add that.
I'd like to add this.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m
u agree with the key.
You don't know, so you hit ^C.
So, that's all. We don't intend to issue certificates... yet.
I'm also asking if there is some use case where the client might legitimate
need the list of trust anchors (/cacerts request) in order so that it can...?
(I couldn't think of a use case
Max Pritikin (pritikin) wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 2018, at 3:23 PM, Michael Richardson
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) wrote:
> >> I was assuming it was mandatory in the current draft, but I was wrong. As
> >> you sugges
that it should be restricted. Partly, I'm just not sure where the
text should go, or if it needs to be said at all.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima maili
ething in EST-COAPS to explain that we do
not see a use case for replying to /crts and /att for clients which are not
recognized. Is 401 (4.01) or 403 (4.03) more appropriate do you think?
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sa
glad that we agree that it should be consistent.
I'm not convinced it's worth having unsigned pledge requests at all.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailin
> something about the consequences of a poor random source. It does not
> need to be a comprehensive as the section dealing with setting time.
I've expanded issue #91:
https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/issues/91
>
> Minor Concerns:
next email.
--
Michael Richardson ,
serial-number is pretty
critical. It goes into the certificate and the MASA uses it as it's primary
key.
So I'm not really sure how to proceed with this comment.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
De
t's a bug that the MASA can be used to prevent resale.
I'd love to resolve the situation, but I don't know how.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima
the Reply-To.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails[
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelma
Thank you Russ!
I will turn your comments into issues, attempting to de-duplicate against
what we already have.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing
f we do it quickly. Destinguishing between arrays of 1-element
and single-items isn't that difficult in the serializations we have.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [
] m...@
ity'
+ assertion and associated 'proximity-registrar-cert' need to be
+ verified to be correct.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
An
ly.
My sense in writing the words was that there were more words needed.
But I didn't know what else I could nail down scope-wise, so I stopped.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
ed artifact
+is include in a base64 format. It is not illegal for attributes
+unknown to a registrar to be included by the pledge.
+
+
+ +-- pledge-voucher-request? binary
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
new protocol in the form of extensions to 8366
processing. I think it also requires the Registrar to contact the OASA
(overriding the MASA URL in the IDevID), but maybe you have another idea.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
si
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> The authors seriously believe that this will result in an attempt to
>> boil the ocean. Yes, BRSKI is exciting for many and opens many doors,
>> but in the context of the *ANIMA* Charter, we strongly think that this
>> document should leave the oceans
, leaving the IDevID also available. This seems
mechanically easy, but seems to open many issues.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.s
ams other than what your IT department
expects you to use for email.}
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
document that anything of the pledge requests goes
upwards.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
t to
renew the liason process from their end.
Rüst will be speaking at the https://iotsfconference.com/.
I am also presenting, my slides are at:
http://www.sandelman.ca/SSW/talks/iotsf2018-brski/
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael
Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-=
hi, is there any progress on this?
Additionally, I thought that I asked for an early allocation of
id-mod-MASAURLExtn2016(TBD) from the pkix(7) id-mod(0) Registry.
this is for BRSKI, section 7.2.
Michael Richardson wrote:
> WG chairs, would you please consider asking Ignas and I
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Discussion welcome, perhaps on int-a...@ietf.org.
okay, I'll go read the document if it's relevant... but you CC'ed here is
the ACP a limited domain?
Or does ANIMA make it more practical in some way to support limited domains?
--
Michael Richard
internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-02.txt has
> been successfully submitted by Michael Richardson and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-anima-constra
|
| 100,000 | 1,000,000,000 | Specification Required |
+-+---++
^-- seem to be too many zeros
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
r than rfc822Name SANs, and I don't think we
ever want more than one.
I would strongly suggest that maybe we want to do this with CBOR instead.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
er Artifacts for Bootstrapping
> Protocols Authors : Michael Richardson Peter van der Stok Panos
> Kampanakis Filename : draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-03.txt Pages
I have slightly rushed to post this -03.
The examples are not updated as much as I'd like, and I have three more
issues
eed to be converted into a serial-number of "type
string". The following methods are used depending on the first
available IDevID certificate field (attempted in this order):
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consultin
Other than that, I'm very happy with the charter.
I put those edits into the wiki, and I also fixed a few spelling mistakes.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima
6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works|IoT architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima
OID 1.3.6.1.4.1.46930.2, but will check for both in the Registrar
for a few months. (This likely means reworking many example/test IDevIDs over
time)}
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
know why we have a $ on transport-proto.
Maybe it's a typo.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works|IoT architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails
, or
does this mean it uses L2 technologies like MACSEC to create a tunnel
for L3 packets?
i.e. does L3 multicast appear to just work because it more layer-2 tricks?
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP
t that it's not in scope
> for this particular draft.
In other words, more IPv4-inspired L2-tricks to maintain the illusion there
is a big-blue cable with AUI taps on it. And continued inability to see L2
switches, or creatively route around L2 failures :-)
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman
replacing IPsec with MACsec or another
encrypted L2VPN protocol which is already in silicon, right?
> As for emulating classic Ethernet, yes, that is how the world works
> today in many places.
Yes.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
will need some additional real-world experience.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
e $transport-proto above indicates the method...
> Otherwise, fwiw I'm happy with bootstrapping-keyinfra-19.
I noticed that extra $ when reading the diff, and removed it.
I will put them all it back: I found another location where it belongs.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Wor
down) ANIMA rather than recharter it. I recognize
that such an action might have negative consequences to how various
people are able to participate.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_
co-chairs
Perhaps we could subdivide this item into three sub-items so that we can
be sure to get through it? Could Toerless post his slides sooner?
Is the intent for it to be mostly mic line?
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.as
; different component than a local domain registrar. In that aspect it
> has a different scope than draft-richardson-anima-smarkaklink.
I think this discussion should be interesting!
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael
echnology like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_unclonable_function
but ultimately, that's just another way to do TPM, so
skirts the question.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consultin
ver-discovery
--> some details are still TBD.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
guess the goal is not to
forget it, but not to go down a rathole.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman
ganathan
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> M. Ranganathan
>> ___
>> Anima mailing list
>> Anima@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> __
to
the MASA that the voucher was accepted by asking for the audit log.
That's fine in a success situation, but not as useful in a fail situation.
I feel that we are missing something here.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP
te the strengh required here.
It's a CBOR value, so it has a length, and I suppose we could define a way to
truncate the value in a standard direction, and then decide later.
I think that a non-truncated hash ought to be as strong as sending the key
itself, and having two cod
op testing that is already ongoing.
Can this go to an early allocation?
Thank you.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.o
ng of the registrar's DER encoded
certificate, rather than the DER encoding itself. This is clearly wrong, but
I do it consistently and tolerantly so I don't notice. I will be fixing
this. However, the signature on the resulting object should be correct, even
if the contents are semantically wrong
PKI
encoding, but I suppose an attacker might find a way to prepad with nonsense
DER.
Please help me decide if this is a useful thing to do.
If it's useful, is it useful enough to drop the pinned-domain-subject-key-info?
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consult
On 2019-05-26 11:54 p.m., Jim Schaad wrote:
Couldn't we send a hash of identity in (2) and (3), and to do this we need
a
new element in the constrained voucher. This I've given the mouthful name
of: proximity-registrar-sha256-of-subject-public-key-info
and:
would find this acceptable, but perhaps some
would not.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works|IoT architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails
Fries, Steffen wrote:
> Yes, definitely. This would help. Thanks.
https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/blob/master/component-diagram.txt
edited, will be in -21.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> >> You're right that in theory subdomains are unrealistic examples, but
does
>> >> that
>> >> matter for an illustrative example?
>>
>> > Why not instead use two domain names that end in .example? E.g.,
>> >
201 - 300 of 1077 matches
Mail list logo
