Hi,
We have submitted a new version of the draft. The changes concern
re-organization of the text to distinguish which recommendations require
changing certificates, and which require changing code. We are soliciting text
on guidelines for certificates used in EAP-TLS.
Comments on the changes
Eliot, thanks for this document. If nothing else, it means that
we BRSKI authors can deal with some review comments by pointing to "future
work" :-)
(A)"request-voucher-with-possession" <-- what about intent to traffic? :-)
(for those that don't get the joke:
https://criminal.findlaw.com/cri
[Christian, read down a ways]
On 22.10.18 20:15, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Eliot, thanks for this document. If nothing else, it means that
> we BRSKI authors can deal with some review comments by pointing to "future
> work" :-)
>
> (A)"request-voucher-with-possession" <-- what about intent to t
{cutting CC of people, and we need to pick a WG list to discuss this on?}
Eliot Lear wrote:
>> The Pledge already can
>> sign it's voucher-request, and since it includes the Registrar's key
when it
>> does a proximity assertion, it's pretty good proof of possession for the
>> *R
