Re: [Anima] dealing with multiple manufacturer services with a single certificate extension

2017-05-22 Thread Michael Richardson
I've read through the thread. It took more brain-power that I've had available of recent. Let me ask some clarification questions about the original proposal. I generally agree with Max that the /.well-known/ part can be omitted. I also prefer passive (static file) initial interactions so

Re: [Anima] dealing with multiple manufacturer services with a single certificate extension

2017-05-02 Thread Eliot Lear
Hi Max, On 4/24/17 5:52 PM, Max Pritikin (pritikin) wrote: > > I’ve been agitating for a combined form. My thanks to Eliot for > continuing the conversation. Below I provide some details from the > current BRSKI draft to flesh out the conversation and then present an > argument for my position.

[Anima] dealing with multiple manufacturer services with a single certificate extension

2017-04-23 Thread Eliot Lear
Hi everyone, Just a quick update on this document. I am preparing for the next version of the draft. There is one major change contemplated that is not yet addressed. I received feedback from the IETF Chicago meeting regarding how best to structure URLs in manufacturer certificates. There are