Hello Michael,
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 06:57:38PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I don't think this belongs in t2trg, but I don't object.
> maybe it goes into ACE or IOTOPS.
I'll appreciate if any of those wanted it; first people I've talked to
about it pointed me to T2TRG. I'll try to get a
On 2023-07-20, at 14:52, Christian Amsüss wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 06:57:38PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> I don't think this belongs in t2trg, but I don't object.
>> maybe it goes into ACE or IOTOPS.
>
> I'll appreciate if any of those wanted it; first people I've talked to
> a
Hello Michael,
(Group(s): See especially PS at the bottom)
thanks for your feedback, that's the very kind I was hoping for.
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 05:52:30PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> IN section 1.1, without having given a picture of what you are doing
> you start to say:
> "The
Christian Amsüss wrote:
>> We wrote something similiar for RFC8366 or 8995, but I think we ripped
>> most of it out. For instance, if a device had a valid IDevID with a
>> notBefore of 2021-02-01, and the RTC said 1980-01-01 [good old DOS
>> epoch], then one could be sure it was
Christian Amsüss wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 05:52:30PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> IN section 1.1, without having given a picture of what you are doing
>> you start to say: "The alternative to this constraint is to declare
>> this a blob" and this is really distractin
