[Ace] Re: [Anima] should I-D Action: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-21.txt update rfc9148

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

I think yes, but i think to justify the update header for rfc9148,
this CSRattr draft would need a short new section to justify it, e.g.:

| 3.4 Update to RFC9148
| 
| The updates to EST in this document equally apply when using
| CoAP as a transport as described in RFC9148. This document therefore
| adds the following paragraph after the second paragraph
| of RFC9148, Section 1.
| 
| EST over CoAP as specified in this document applies unchanged
| to RFC7030 updated by THISRFC. Hence, all references to RFC7030 in
| this document are assumed to indicate RFC7030 updated by THISRFC.
|
| THISRFC also becomes a new mandatory reference to RFC9148

Cheers
    toerless

On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 12:59:03PM +0100, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> [e-mail] wrote:
>     > Title:   Clarification and enhancement of RFC7030 CSR Attributes definition
> 
> Oops, something I meant to mention but we kept getting dragged back into the
> weeds, and maybe belonged in the Shepherd write up:
> 
> RFC9148, EST-coaps: Enrollment over Secure Transport with the Secure Constrained
>                           Application Protocol
> 
> This document puts 7030 over COAPS, and uses /csrattrs (as /att).
> It doesn't change CSRATTRS in any way, and someone implementing RFC9148 ought
> to be reading 7030, and updates to 7030.
> 
> But, should this document explicitely update 9148 as well?
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
> 
> 
> 



-- 
---
[e-mail]