I've tried to add a new field to the (parboiled) voucher-request that
would go from the Registrar to the MASA.  This is to contain a copy of the
unsigned raw (Pledge->Registrar) voucher-request.  This is for the situation
where that request is unsigned.

Kent, I'll need some help here.  I think this may call for a YANG mount?
As I'm trying to say that at the pledge-voucher-request that there will be
an instance of voucher-request.
(I've written "binary" for the moment so that the YANG will compile)

I've also specified that the entire JSON (including the outer:
"ietf-voucher-request:voucher" should go here. I don't know if that's typical
JSON serialization.  Whether or not it goes there, the document needs to be
explicit about it.
(ps: I'd rather remove unsigned requests though)


        leaf pledge-voucher-request {
          type SOMETHING;
          description
            "When the pledge provides an unsigned voucher request, the
             Registrar includes the contents of that voucher-request verbatim
             in this field.  The serialization of the Registrar to MASA
             voucher-request is assumed to be the same as the serialization of 
the
             Pledge to Registrar voucher-request.

             The entire contents of the voucher-request including any outer
             ietf-voucher-request:voucher should be included in this field.

             The Registrar should not be surprised if there are additional
             attributes, private between the pledge and MASA that are included
             in this field.";
        }


+
+        <t hangText="pledge-voucher-request:">If an unsigned
+        voucher-request was received, then it is included in this field
+        rather than in the prior-signed-voucher-request field.  Within the
+        context of the ACP scope, unsigned voucher-requests are received in
+        JSON format, therefore this field is in JSON format as a dictionary.
+        It includes the outer "ietf-voucher-request:voucher" layer.
+        This is in contrast to the signed version, where the signed artifact
+        is include in a base64 format.  It is not illegal for attributes
+        unknown to a registrar to be included by the pledge.
+        </t>
+

....
+       +-- pledge-voucher-request?          binary


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Reply via email to