Re: [Anima] MichaelR/Rob/*: RFC8995 errata concerns

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

I am not sure what to do about this in general, but i think the really important
issue is that we ask for support of SNI in BRSKI cloud to support actual cloud
deployment (with shared IP address) of registrars, when pledges only have TLS 1.2 - because
RFC8995 did not require it.

So, i did open: https://github.com/anima-wg/brski-cloud/issues/134

For any other cases, lets hope Michael and I can sort through this - but i am pretty sure
there are no crucial deployment issues beside the BRSKI cloud one (crossing finger ;-))

Cheers
    toerless

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:45:24AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Rob Wilton \(rwilton\) <rwilton=[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > Was there any conclusion of what to do here, which I think applies to
>     > errata 6648: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=6648
> 
>     > I don't think that this is an errata that can be verified, hence I'm
>     > questioning whether "Held for document update" would be both correct
>     > and helpful.  Would it be useful to update the text of the errata at
>     > all, or alternatively, I could just point to this thread in the notes.
> 
> I wrote that errata based upon some discussion at some point about
> implementing things, and probably my draft-richardson-anima-registrar-considerations.
> 
> **The SNI comment is really the Technical update part**
> 
> I'd like the XML to be patched, so whatever gets that done.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 



-- 
---
[e-mail]