Tim: Works for me. Thanks for considering my suggestion.
Russ > On Mar 27, 2018, at 5:38 AM, Tim Bruijnzeels <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Russ, all, > > How about: > > OLD: > A signed TAL is an RPKI signed object, as specified in [RFC6488]. > > NEW: > The signed TAL object uses the standard template for > specifying signed objects that can be validated using the > RPKI [RFC6488], which is based on Cryptographic > Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652] as a standard > encapsulation format. > > (Relevant text included and paraphrased from 6488) > > Tim > > >> On 22 Mar 2018, at 18:44, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Tim: >> >> I think that a statement in Section 3 that it uses CMS SignedData [RFC5652] >> would make this very clear. >> >> Russ >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Tim Bruijnzeels <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Russ, >>> >>> Yes, this is a CMS object. Section 3 describes this. It’s an extension of >>> RPKI Signed Object - which is CMS.- and specifies the relevant content type >>> (3.1) and eContent (3.2). >>> >>> Tim >>> >>>> On 22 Mar 2018, at 17:02, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Is the intent to use CMS to sign the trust anchor list? Since ROAs are >>>> signed with CMS, I was expecting these signatures to follow the same >>>> convention. However, there is no reference to CMS in the draft. >>>> >>>> Russ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sidr mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >>>> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
