[Anima] Re: Mike Bishop's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Gorry Fairhurst]

On 12/05/2025 14:02, Michael Richardson wrote:
Gorry Fairhurst<go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
     > For my side, I will be happy to clear my DISCUSS when the text explains 
the
     > current relationship to draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13, and I think you may
     > already have the thoughts behind that above. I am looking forward to a 
text
     > proposal.
You want me to explain in BRSKI-PRM, which updates RFC8995, why RFC8995 is
completely compliant with the intention of uta-require-tls13, but is not
apparently consistent with the text, because uta-require-tls13 uses BCP14 
keywords
incorrectly?

--
Michael Richardson<mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*

Please go ahead and try to explain why this RFC-to-be that will appear 
after/with uta-require-tls is arriving at a different conclusion.

Thanks,

Gorry
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org