Re: [Last-Call] Post approval change on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael (et al),

I noticed two things about that diff:

1. 8.3.1 says 'IANA is asked to change the registration of "est" to include RFC7030 and this document.' I don't see any use of the `est` well-known URI in this document; why is that update necessary?

2. 8.3.2 asks for the BRSKI registry to be a sub-registry of the well-known URI registry. I'm concerned that if adopted as common practice, this will make crowd the well-known URI registry with a number of application-specific sub-registries. As such my (fairly strong) preference would be for this registry to be separate from it.

Cheers,



> On 17 Sep 2020, at 1:08 am, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> having to assume EST. Therefore the above BRSKI diff (and BRSKI-AE) propose
>> to introduce a /.well-known/brski registry.
> 
> I believe that I ran the text by Mark, who I believe is the /.well-known
> expert reviewer.  I believe that he said that it looked good, but it would be
> great if Mark could confirm that I got it right.
> 
>>> Dear ANIMA WG
>>> 
>>> This email starts a 2 week call for consensus to modify draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra
>>> such that new well-known URIs introduced by BRSKI will use a /.well-known/brski
>>> prefix instead of the pre-existing /.well-known/est prefix.
>>> 
>>> The proposed change can be seen at the following rfcdiff URL:
>>> 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-43&url2=draft-richardson-anima-brski-renamed-00
>>> 
>>> This consensus call will end on September 14, 23:59 UTC
>>> This consensus call is ONLY for said change and not for any other aspects of BRSKI.
> 
> Existing implementers have agreed to the change.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/