I think yes, but i think to justify the update header for rfc9148,
this CSRattr draft would need a short new section to justify it, e.g.:
| 3.4 Update to RFC9148
|
| The updates to EST in this document equally apply when using
| CoAP as a transport as described in RFC9148. This document therefore
| adds the following paragraph after the second paragraph
| of RFC9148, Section 1.
|
| EST over CoAP as specified in this document applies unchanged
| to RFC7030 updated by THISRFC. Hence, all references to RFC7030 in
| this document are assumed to indicate RFC7030 updated by THISRFC.
|
| THISRFC also becomes a new mandatory reference to RFC9148
Cheers
toerless
On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 12:59:03PM +0100, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> > Title: Clarification and enhancement of RFC7030 CSR Attributes
> definition
>
> Oops, something I meant to mention but we kept getting dragged back into the
> weeds, and maybe belonged in the Shepherd write up:
>
> RFC9148, EST-coaps: Enrollment over Secure Transport with the Secure
> Constrained
> Application Protocol
>
> This document puts 7030 over COAPS, and uses /csrattrs (as /att).
> It doesn't change CSRATTRS in any way, and someone implementing RFC9148 ought
> to be reading 7030, and updates to 7030.
>
> But, should this document explicitely update 9148 as well?
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
>
>
>
--
---
t...@cs.fau.de
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org
