IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] [Anima] RFC8994/8995 requirements for CSRattr

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 07 September 2021 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@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 969E53A1E1A; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 05:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 uyLK0we0a8EV; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 05:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94F863A1DFC; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 05:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33ECD39756; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 08:46:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 3TnknEy8IFJr; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 08:46:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA3439755; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 08:46:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F2DC2CC; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 08:39:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR22MB2542E4982D5C4008C46CAA1CE8D29@SJ0PR22MB2542.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
References: <26149.1630260692@localhost> <1dec22e1-3856-4df7-21d6-4ad6c94e0ee2@lounge.org> <13498.1630308106@localhost> <0a744c63-464b-9801-2a46-9853af1efb0c@lounge.org> <479b3595-cb44-8ece-aa80-4f30a2cdafce@lear.ch> <285e354a-8b5f-7ab4-0e03-20d06328d897@von-Oheimb.de> <da2ce36c-3756-f4c0-7907-a5976d492a82@lear.ch> <ce27e660-6636-b44b-9599-954e9f1ec085@von-Oheimb.de> <d7377093-54c0-3577-f42d-5d410d307eaf@lear.ch> <1351.1630688419@localhost> <0d4084ab-c3d5-ef3b-3853-e31d77976b78@von-Oheimb.de> <SJ0PR22MB2542E4982D5C4008C46CAA1CE8D29@SJ0PR22MB2542.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 08:39:55 -0400
Message-ID: <1049.1631018395@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/t4-gHwXDTSfk5K_bJd9K7psbS70>
Subject: Re: [lamps] [Anima] RFC8994/8995 requirements for CSRattr
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 12:40:10 -0000

Tomas Gustavsson <tomas.gustavsson=40primekey.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > The most popular options that I encounter in the wild right now, and
    > for the last 10 years or so, for augmenting RA->CA:

    >   * CMP CRMF requests using raVerified POP (used quite a lot)

understood.

    > The drive today is clearly towards using some sort of REST API. There
    > is no standard for this of course, perhaps ACME is the closest to a
    > standardized REST API you get today?

Yes, I'd say so.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email