> On 22 Sep 2020, at 2:15 am, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. Makes sense. >> 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". That'd be fine. Cheers / thanks, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
