Fries, Steffen <steffen.fries=40siemens....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> * Registrar:
>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-anima-registrar-considerations/
> * MASA:
>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-anima-masa-considerations/
I'm very pleased to revise these document.
I had some notions about content, and the introduction of
registrar-considerations sets up some modelds which were never used.
I would be happy expand that part (use them), or remote the setup.
> As we meanwhile have several different enhancements to BRSKI with PRM,
> AE, constraint BRSKI, ... it would be good to bring these documents
> back to life to capture operational considerations applicable to all
> variants. To do so, I would propose to provide feedback to the existing
> (yet expired) drafts to provide an updated version, which can be used
> to ask WG for adoption.
> Any thoughts?
I prefer to adopt documents when the problem they are describing is correct,
even if the solution is wrong. So I'd rather adopt and edit, rather than
edit and adopt, but it's up to the WG. I would say that any comments you had
would also be appropriate as WG Adoption comments.
There are in particular, some operational restrictions on how private keys
are managed on the Registrar(s) which became more obvious as the process of
scaling the Registrar is explained in that operational document. A few of
those results got into RFC8995 (at the last moment), while some other parts
wound up in cBRSKI, I think.
--
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 To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org
