Hey Michael, I was assuming it was mandatory in the current draft, but I was wrong. As you suggest it is not clear in the -17 version. I do think that an unsigned voucher should make it to the MASA, like a signed one would, for consistency. Panos
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2018 7:12 PM To: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Max Pritikin (pritikin) <[email protected]>; consultancy <[email protected]>; Kent Watsen <[email protected]> Subject: Re: unsigned voucher requests in BRSKI * PGP Signed by an unknown key Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <[email protected]> wrote: > I think > 1) CMS signed JSON, containing (prior=CMS signed JSON) or > 4) CMS signed JSON, containing unsigned JSON. So, in the unsigned pledge request, you feel that the pledge request needs to go up to the MASA? It is not clear from the document that anything of the pledge requests goes upwards. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- * Unknown Key * 0xDDD0DD65 _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
