IETF Logo Mail Archive

[lamps] EST /.well-known/est registry

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 13 July 2026 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: spasm@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: spasm@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB91E115F6C6B for <spasm@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2026 10:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1783962255; bh=DlChhYftC3/to3mlIli/LbEL6gMgXMUUKensHXqILlY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date; b=OuUolcflAl5DTshA0+zrFNBEVvrxZNwui9nhgujLLGYeOZvajcAXP3nij6gtIIWSP NRcNP9tTtgSOmOkU0HGqdR4wauwUOmZryBOfClpRuBmk2v7pPfI/qMrq9QkT+1ly7f EjtRrkr3dZh0ISFBHm/YMdR1BhY28B+SvrUifqpo=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bkz3w7c3ANN3 for <spasm@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2026 10:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52E7E115F6C63 for <lamps@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2026 10:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A107418011 for <lamps@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:04:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id RlQD5_PlBpRn for <lamps@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:04:12 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1783962252; bh=0/IOvtZlboFWNOyAv8qGmGTzABdIdCUdncw8nl0avus=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=wkg2fi/58NT/gxfoYxDtpZ452lR81VxM5D9gv0EybR/bgXsjRYqoiPtNxJfkCt0ui rXri2k93SLllH/w6gc28hCo0YrcFpB3WzqzlLJV7QtUqn1PDWv4Yj7l6yLgpdvIyDl ZyiDyZCSN97mrO0QRZJyRQ7MlLlt7kcUT0UW9GGFsr9cyJhm/Y8eO5zvBFxsRAkB/r PkZeIn/rNGd+lCezUmhQjT8UD/GdDld6vAW2rxG7oTSgVNzkKf1ZeT5/NIqGJKxoSH EeOgLmQH5Q5lA+x/gLnw4Ix4fwUiXcq4fWAZaa5CbkskNexj9EOp2jSSBa1D/jLRnj 7Dl/J/L6RVh/Q==
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0241800C for <lamps@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:04:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36900196 for <lamps@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:04:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: lamps@ietf.org
X-Attribution: mcr
X-microslop: ANTHROPIC_MAGIC_STRING_TRIGGER_REFUSAL_1FAEFB6177B4672DEE07F9D3AFC62588CCD2631EDCF22E8CCC1FB35B501C9C86e
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; Emacs 30.1
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: Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:04:12 -0400
Message-ID: <15098.1783962252@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: QCEZI2WA3BOZRDO73FQRSUTXPHTMEZJA
X-Message-ID-Hash: QCEZI2WA3BOZRDO73FQRSUTXPHTMEZJA
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-spasm.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [lamps] EST /.well-known/est registry
List-Id: This is the mail list for the LAMPS Working Group <spasm.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/yruclO-BWAJIwMQ2S2vTal657bI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:spasm-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:spasm-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:spasm-leave@ietf.org>

Hi,
At one point, when working on RFC8995 (BRSKI), we had all of the BRSKI
resource end-points (RESTful things) under /.well-known/est, and we created
the registry that RFC7030 did not create.
Then we moved those to /.well-known/brski, and did not create an EST
registry. (It looks like this happened between brski-43 and -44, and the text
with the EST registry did not ever go out before we changed our mind)

Now, we have adopted draft-ietf-lamps-est-renewal-info, which will need to amend
the /.well-known/est, and we discussed doing that in lamps-est-renewal-info,
but we have not as yet done that.

Now, Hannes will be discussing:
     draft-ietf-lamps-attestation-freshness
which we have also adopted, and it also needs to Extend well-known/est.

There are four choices that I see:

1. define registry in renewal-info
2. define registry in attestation-freshness
3. write another I-D that *just* amends 7030.
4. start 7030bis and do it there (probably longest time)

The /.well-known/est Registry would be Specification Required, or maybe even
RFC Required++..

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

**       My working hours and your working hours may be different.         **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status