Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
Previously, all of the things in this document were /.well-known/est/FOOBAR.
They are now, /.well-known/brski/FOOBAR.
IANA has actually already acted on section 8.3.1, btw.
We need them to undo that.
I guess that section 8.3.1 should be removed, which I'll do.
I guess since the WG has passed this change, I should push the new version.
How about if I change it to:
<t>
IANA is asked to change the registration of "est" to now only
include RFC7030 and no longer this document.
> 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.
So rather than asking for a sub-registry, you'd like us to just establish a
registry.
<t>
IANA is requested to create a new Registry entitled: "BRSKI well-known URIs".
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
