Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> I am not sure what to do about this in general, but i think the really
> important issue is that we ask for support of SNI in BRSKI cloud to
> support actual cloud deployment (with shared IP address) of registrars,
> when pledges only have TLS 1.2 - because RFC8995 did not require it.
> So, i did open: https://github.com/anima-wg/brski-cloud/issues/134
I replied. There is no SNI issue.
We actually thought it all through, and that errata was the result.
There is a potential issue in 3.3.1 that reading the issue made me think
about. But, it's not an SNI issue. It's a Implicit Trust Anchor or not issue.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
