Salz, Rich wrote:
> That is great to hear, thanks for the careful analysis.
>> Some nits:
> All look like good things to do, I'll make a PR soonish.
> What do you think of just rewriting this to completely replace 6125,
> rather than trying to be a "diff RFC"?
If you mean,
>In summary, I don't see anything in use-san that will affect BRSKI.
That is great to hear, thanks for the careful analysis.
>Some nits:
All look like good things to do, I'll make a PR soonish.
What do you think of just rewriting this to completely replace 6125, rather
than trying to b
I read the document before it was adopted (before SECDISPATCH), and I didn't
see any problems with it.
I have re-read it in the context of IoT or enterprise (routers) devices that
might contain long-lived IDevID (sometimes called Manufacturer Installed
Certificates, confusingly appreviated "MIC")
