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 <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
