> On 13 Jul 2019, at 17:10, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
>
> Eliot Lear wrote:
>> I think the simplest way to address the bulk of both Adam’s and
>> Warren’s concern is to require the device to emit via whatever
>> management interface exists, upon request, a voucher that it
Hi,
I will remove my discuss. As long as you have good reasons to have
dependenecies on a particular version of HTTP and TLS and transport
protocol that is fine with me. Just ensure that it is clear for the
different type of interactions what is the actual requirement. And if
there are no reason
> On Jul 15, 2019, at 02:39, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> To Adam’s broader point, there are at least several ways to approach this.
> We can leave it to the vendor to decide which is correct, and we can continue
> to look to standardize ideas such as the one Michael had in the message I’m
>
> On Jul 15, 2019, at 02:39, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> This give you the option for that not to be the case (people needn’t worry
> about Siemens, Rockwell, JCI, Honeywell, or Schneider Electric going out of
> business anytime soon, for instance
When I started IETF work, Nortel would have been
On 7/15/19 3:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 15-Jul-19 16:45, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I presume I am missing something basic.
I have tried to follow this discussion, as it seems to be about a
critical aspect of whether the BRSKI work is acceptable.
I have assumed that what we needed is the
I would probably go a step further than Adam. Protecting the device so
a thief can not use it in the thiefs' own network seems to me to be
something that we should not be trying to achieve. An active non-goal.
It is not our problem. And trying to achieve it has the implications
that lead to
Joel,
I'd be happy with that as long as there is a scope statement that makes
it clear to the reader.
Regards
Brian
On 16-Jul-19 09:42, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I would probably go a step further than Adam. Protecting the device so
> a thief can not use it in the thiefs' own network seems
Adding such scope text, along with the mechanism to get the needed
credentials, would be fine with me.
Joel
On 7/15/2019 6:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Joel,
I'd be happy with that as long as there is a scope statement that makes
it clear to the reader.
Regards
Brian
On 16-Jul-19
On 15-Jul-19 16:45, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I presume I am missing something basic.
> I have tried to follow this discussion, as it seems to be about a
> critical aspect of whether the BRSKI work is acceptable.
>
> I have assumed that what we needed is the ability for a buyer, who has
>
