Hi Michael,
>> So, please: Is it about direct EUI64 support in x509? Or about omit
>> EUI64 in device certificates?
>
> This is about what SNI supports vs what X509 supports.
Thanks for the clarification.
br
Achim
___
Uta mailing list -- uta@ietf.or
Hi Michael,
> TL;DR> Help us avoid stuffing non-DNS strings into
>SubjectAltName dNSName when doing device to device (D)TLS.
I may fail to understandiung your question or intention.
Maybe you clarify it.
Your initial question in "draft-tls13-iot" was:
"I was looking for a SN, or SAN th
Great overview!
> What is a bit disappointing is that many extensions targeting IoT
optimizations are not implemented. It is hard to say why. Maybe
companies don't feel a need to use these optimizations, maybe the
optimizations aren't good enough, or companies are unaware of these RFCs.
Sometime
Open
Source project Leshan (LwM2M), see
https://github.com/eclipse/leshan/pull/869.
FMPOV, it means the extension MAY be used, and a implementation MUST
support it, if used. Others seems to read it as, "the extension MUST be
used".
I would appreciate, if someone could help to c
Hi list,
a few days ago, I mailed that question to the dtls-iot list and got
asked, to move it here.
I'm interested in some background/details about
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7925#section-16
mentions:
"Client implementations SHOULD implement this extension even though
the ciphersuites re
