Re: [Anima] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

{Hi Tom, I don't quite understand, but I don't seem to get emails directly
From you.  Or perhaps it has to do with it being posted through the
datatracker.  This is not the first review I have missed in this way.}

We had forgotten about the content of Appendix C, which is not normative.
It stems from an era when we were not sure how successful RFC8520 will be.

I have issued version -31 in which we remove Appendix C rather than fix it.

This extension could be added correctly at a later date, and at this point,
we don't see the MUD FILE->MASA URL flow as particularly important.

Both URLs can be in the IDevID if needed, at the cost of bytes in the IDevID
certificate.

I think that there are operational problems with embedding the MUD URL in the
IDevID relating to firmware upgrades, nor is that related to this appendix.
It is not a BRSKI issue, but it does mean that the likelyhood of a MUD URL
being the only extension that can be afforded an IDevID is significantly less
likely.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-