IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-01.txt

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sat, 01 October 2022 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55E95C152583 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2022 11:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kLjDquT-EizF for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2022 11:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25D56C152573 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Oct 2022 11:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10015126BF4; Sat, 1 Oct 2022 14:59:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (pfs.iad.rg.net [198.180.150.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F4040126ABF; Sat, 1 Oct 2022 14:59:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <6EDB3690-20A4-4936-98F2-05BFBA33BCAA@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_39E108AF-D0B1-456E-AABA-BDE29B43D4CB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2022 14:59:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <147753.1664614839@dooku>
Cc: LAMPS <spasm@ietf.org>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
References: <166455529121.57946.12490739958683425020@ietfa.amsl.com> <75552DF2-990C-4444-99F4-C905BEB230B5@vigilsec.com> <147753.1664614839@dooku>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.09 on 66.39.134.11
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/LQQmsir3c7z8DtA5_DEDMf-JPFc>
Subject: Re: [lamps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-01.txt
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2022 18:59:36 -0000

Michael:
> 
> Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>> You are using very different formats to show the examples in Section
>> 5.1 and Section 5.2.  Can you pick one?
> 
> Yes, that's true.
> What would the WG like?  I prefer more details in the dump to allow
> implementers to better diagnose what's different.
> Others seem to prefer less details so they can focus on just the ASN1.
> I think electrons are cheap.
> 
> So, I would like to get to a normative fashion, but I don't have the DER for
> 5.2 yet, so I can't make it consistent.
> 
> I've also been promised examples for the other sections.

I am fine with either format.  I have a mild preference for the one in Section 5.2.

Russ

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status