Given "device-attest-01" is already shipped in some client implementations
I don't think we should change the name.
I also don't think we should try and make this more generic and add more
wrapper layers, type IDs are free, we can just invent more.
Personally I'm in favour of a CMW attestation bei
That’s fine, but it opens the potential for the same types to be registered
under different wrappers. It’s not the end of the world.
From: Q Misell
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 at 2:59 AM
To: Carl Wallace
Cc: Mike Ounsworth , Thomas Fossati
, "acme@ietf.org" ,
"draft-acme-device-att...@iet
Q said:
> Personally I'm in favour of a CMW attestation being device-attest-02.
Yeah, I think the outcome of this thread is that that’s the right direction.
Now we need a hero to start that draft.
Carl said:
> That’s fine, but it opens the potential for the same types to be registered
