So long as there is close alignment I’m not stuck on a particular approach. I do want them both defined in the voucher doc so that BRSKI can reference them similarly. There are some fields of the current voucher that apply to one aspect or the other (or both). I don’t know how ‘grouping’ addresses that but am happy to learn.
- max On Apr 20, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I don't think that the voucher should also be a voucher request. There should be another artifact defined for a voucher request, if needed. YANG 'grouping' statements can be used to ensure syntactic alignment between the two artifacts. K. On 4/19/17, 8:13 PM, "Max Pritikin (pritikin)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: FYI - added the below to capture it but not distract myself from current ‘concise’ branch work. As per the recommendations I’m informing the list as well. I’ll circle back to this - max https://github.com/anima-wg/voucher/issues/3 There is some inconsistencies in the existing text that need to be resolved (see below). Additionally if a "voucher" can also be a "voucher request" then the requester can't necessarily populate all the fields. These related issues need to be dealt with. leaf nonce { type binary { length "8..32"; } must "not(../expires-on)"; description "A value that can be used by a pledge in some bootstrapping protocols to enable anti-replay protection. This node is optional because it is not used by all bootstrapping protocols.
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
