Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > Also, a related question is whether ietf-cwt-voucher-request to inherit > from BRSKI's ietf-voucher-request, or from ietf-voucher... It's not > clear to me that it's a 100% subclass yet.
So, the name started at "cwt-voucher-request", because it was originally
thought that it would use CWT directly (RFC8392), using the Claim keys from
there.
Then after some distraction, the process is now a COSE signed SID generated
YANG, which isn't exactly CWT at all.
The name "cwt-voucher"{,-request} is no longer appropriate.
Some constraction of "constrained" is probably now appropriate, looking for
suggestions.
It's also reasonable to say that we use CWT concepts when they map, and
introduce new key ids via the YANG/SID mechanism. That's a significant
design change, but it's not that huge.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
