Adam Roach <[email protected]> wrote: > among them. I'll note that these techniques relate to MIME types and > related > data (filename extensions). The fact that *this* document doesn't > define a MIME > type for the CMS-signed-JSON variant will make it difficult and/or > awkward for > these future formats to employ these techniques. For example, if I were
In the first use of this format over HTTPS, which is "BRSKI", We register parameters for the application/smime-type. Since that we written we changed the "primary" signing type from PKCS7 to CMS, so I think that these will become application/cms registrations instead. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-09#section-7 > This document requests the following Parameter Values for the "smime- > type" Parameters: > > o voucher-request > > o voucher As for .vcj extension, that's a good idea. I think that NETCONF could register something. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
