Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[At-Risk] Implementations of PublicSecurityScheme needed #735

Closed
mmccool opened this issue May 31, 2019 · 1 comment
Closed

[At-Risk] Implementations of PublicSecurityScheme needed #735

mmccool opened this issue May 31, 2019 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
at-risk Defer to next TD spec version This topic is not covered in this charter, maybe included for the next TD version. Security Testing

Comments

@mmccool
Copy link
Contributor

mmccool commented May 31, 2019

The PublicSecurityScheme is currently at risk

  • 2 additional implementations are needed
@mmccool mmccool added Testing by PR transition Comments addressed during the CR period at-risk labels May 31, 2019
@mkovatsc mkovatsc added the Defer to next TD spec version This topic is not covered in this charter, maybe included for the next TD version. label Jun 19, 2019
@mkovatsc
Copy link
Contributor

I am happy to defer this and provide it, for instance together with the CoAP binding vocabulary.

I actually already dislike the name of the scheme -- it is for Raw Public Keys, not a public scheme. Detailed fields for the metadata are also missing. Let's fix this together with CoAPS experts.

@mkovatsc mkovatsc added CR period and removed by PR transition Comments addressed during the CR period labels Jun 19, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
at-risk Defer to next TD spec version This topic is not covered in this charter, maybe included for the next TD version. Security Testing
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants