Hi, I am no expert but this draft seems good to me.
One question. If I understand correctly, the only assertions defined so far are 'verified' and 'logged'. Presumably 'verified' applies to pledges whose ID is known in advance and 'logged' applies to pledges that just show up on the network? So I assume that protocols using this voucher format must define the conditions. For example it seems to me that in an ANIMA network, we will not accept 'logged' devices, but will insist on 'verified'. If so, perhaps this statement > Pledges MUST > ensure that the assertion provided is acceptable before > processing the voucher. is not quite enough. I think we need to require that each specification of a use case for the voucher format MUST specify how pledges will decide whether the assertion is acceptable. Also, it isn't just the pledge. In an ANIMA network, surely the registrar should block any pledge that is only 'logged'? Regards Brian On 09/06/2017 19:52, Sheng Jiang wrote: > Hi all, > > > > This message starts the two-week ANIMA Working Group Last Call to advance > draft-ietf-anima-voucher-03, Voucher Profile for Bootstrapping Protocols. > This document's intended status is Standards Track. At present, there is no > IPR file against this document. > > > > Please send your comments by June 23, 2017. If you do not feel this document > should advance, please state your reasons why. > > > > Sheng JIANG is the assigned shepherd. > > > > Regards, > > > > Sheng & Toerless > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
