IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] Last Call: <draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-20.txt> (Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructures (BRSKI)) to Proposed Standard

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Tue, 11 June 2019 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@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 226E11200C1 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 Q0-hJ6_WG5Dy for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DE6D120094 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C970A38187; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:35:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 2120BEAE; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:36:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3E0C0C; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:36:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <54faee93-9476-80f1-e16c-839af53ef066@gmail.com>
References: <155847367546.2608.5031283783681425886.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <02DFBB01-F7BA-4BCA-B8C5-CF14E8B7A6F4@cisco.com> <20190604192843.gbavqofsq4btcgx3@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <045A7809-CB6F-493E-B9F2-FBF563AD5378@cisco.com> <20190607211720.y63ysayeqtkgi3lj@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <60BB0A11-A12B-4EA5-9379-12C75100D64C@cisco.com> <77dc7db3-e281-2475-6909-c9c5a982f973@gmail.com> <CABcZeBPcJN9eweSW8ayVAbyehjizycpLN2=dDe1txZEh8dm7QQ@mail.gmail.com> <6636.1560178188@localhost> <CABcZeBOJrnhi1vhZ5dcfS3-3DH_duWKCora-+AjARx5MwfUi+g@mail.gmail.com> <da17de42-dc02-38bf-3593-e95e2f715650@gmail.com> <CABcZeBOn3h5E3nurNPYwnPUWWXk2wJ30Bx1SN96y9MjtDqwPuw@mail.gmail.com> <20970.1560208503@localhost> <54faee93-9476-80f1-e16c-839af53ef066@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <11112.1560213386.1@localhost>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:36:26 -0400
Message-ID: <11114.1560213386@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/kov_aNaIDVyT-UU8IQ2MBfLtl-4>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Last Call: <draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-20.txt> (Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructures (BRSKI)) to Proposed Standard
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: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:36:31 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
    >> >> You're right that in theory subdomains are unrealistic examples, but does
    >> >> that
    >> >> matter for an illustrative example?
    >>
    >> > Why not instead use two domain names that end in .example? E.g.,
    >> > demo.example and dem0.example
    >>
    >> works for me.

    > Absolutely, I had forgotten that .example. was reserved by RFC2606.

I upcased "demO" so that it looks like "dem0".

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email