what is wrong with going simple: “constrained voucher request” ?
- max
> On Jun 1, 2018, at 9:10 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> 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
> [
> ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails
> [
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
