IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] [netmod] [anima-wg/anima-brski-async-enroll] Definition of new assertion type (agent-proximity) for the voucher (#18)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 18 June 2021 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51C303A1256; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UCad8rLFdrd5; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27B4F3A1250; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494DA38DF7; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:24:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id z1xKj4mYWWPb; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:24:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA3D38DF4; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:24:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B68D03E8; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:23:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
cc: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, "Fries, Steffen" <steffen.fries@siemens.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>, "Werner, Thomas" <thomas-werner@siemens.com>
In-Reply-To: <0100017a20e0cf30-e926da4a-8fa5-44f7-ad08-21cbde8f7622-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <anima-wg/anima-brski-async-enroll/issues/18@github.com> <19872.1623779796@localhost> <0100017a16ff590b-6803346f-2ef6-4b19-88bf-3c670e32d5a0-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CABCOCHQRJB3nca36bz+gVykw5fxym7ji3GJrVMcrsW+6uUopYg@mail.gmail.com> <c8c4ea615bb2450c9a1a9fccb956909f@siemens.com> <CABCOCHRs7npz4nv3KnfHSGaDEuskPbdOSn-bjXt83r+46VEaRg@mail.gmail.com> <06674cb9709f4bd6bc2af297b929163f@siemens.com> <CABCOCHRGYM3nkUaX4_quu3JpznYXDdwejD11ppWni3wU8tEbkA@mail.gmail.com> <32390.1624046989@localhost> <0100017a20e0cf30-e926da4a-8fa5-44f7-ad08-21cbde8f7622-000000@email.amazonses.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:23:10 -0400
Message-ID: <6456.1624054990@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/BkyJxo4xd6fhS3sEiyRa6wrY7Us>
Subject: Re: [Anima] [netmod] [anima-wg/anima-brski-async-enroll] Definition of new assertion type (agent-proximity) for the voucher (#18)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 22:23:24 -0000

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote:
    > An IANA registry cannot be used to extend RFC 8366 now…if that were
    > desired, it would have had to be defined by RFC 8366.  A revision of
    > RFC 8366 could define such behavior, but then would might wonder why
    > not use the revision to instead flip "leaf assertion” to “type
    > identityref”.

Yes, okay, so if we have to revise 8366, then this sounds like something we
should do.

    > FWIW, "leaf assertion” is not used by SZTP (RFC 8572).

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email