On 22/05/2025 21:02, Michael Richardson wrote:
Gorry Fairhurst<go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
> OK. So, I am trying to work out what that sentence could read like if
> it were to help people understand what you explain. Could it be
> something like:
> /potentially no transport layer security between Registrar-Agent and
> pledge/use where there is no transport layer security between
> Registrar-Agent and pledge/
Is this for section 5.1, where it says:
* There is no trust assumption between the pledge and the Registrar-Agent
as only authenticated self-contained objects are used, which are
transported via the Registrar-Agent and provided either by the pledge or
the domain registrar.
or did you have another place that you'd put this?
Ah, the original text I was commenting upon was in section 9, and is
likely just too terse:
"Further privacy aspects need to be considered for:
*
the introduction of the additional component Registrar-Agent
*
potentially no transport layer security between Registrar-Agent and
pledge"
I was uggetsing making this longer, even better to also add a cross
reference to another section if there is one, this is a non-blocking
comment, but it would be nice to see those two bullets as readable on
their own.
Best wishes,
Gorry
> - this comment relates only to not seeing what is being said, not to a
> deeper problem.
> Best wishes,
> Gorry
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Alternatives:
> ----------------------------------------------------
--
Michael Richardson<mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org
