On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 10:45:54PM +0100, Michael Richardson wrote: > Deb Cooley <debcool...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You want to do this now? After (or your ask was right before) the > telechat? > > I figured better to ask now than after the telechat was all over. > My appologies for forgetting this before. > > > If you want to do this, I'd like the working group to weigh in (for > > whatever definition of 'working group' is best - at least lamps, and > likely > > others). > > RFC9148 was done by ACE. > draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher (aka cBRSKI) uses/extends RFC9148. > Thus ANIMA and ACE are in the CC.
In my only partially informed opinion there's a decent case for having draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs update 9418, but if we end up doing so it would mean writing at least a paragraph more text (and maybe more). I would not be particularly upset if the Updates: relationship was not added. (It could be done in a separate document later if it proves needed; I note that the /att path is optional for EST-coaps.) -Ben _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org
