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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 01 October 2022 09:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 1E35AC14F742 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2022 02:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 BHpLlf7Iy9pE for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2022 02:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (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 A3947C14F73D for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Oct 2022 02:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2a02:3030:81c:26e6:a04b:96fa:fa29:871b]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F15D21F455; Sat, 1 Oct 2022 09:00:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 5FCBE1A0756; Sat, 1 Oct 2022 11:00:39 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, LAMPS <spasm@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <75552DF2-990C-4444-99F4-C905BEB230B5@vigilsec.com>
References: <166455529121.57946.12490739958683425020@ietfa.amsl.com> <75552DF2-990C-4444-99F4-C905BEB230B5@vigilsec.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> message dated "Fri, 30 Sep 2022 12:40:44 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7.1; GNU Emacs 27.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2022 11:00:39 +0200
Message-ID: <147753.1664614839@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/iyOQS1Ogo7RjpKuR9tJvtZeNNco>
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 09:00:48 -0000

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.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-