Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: >> So, why doesn't RFC8366 reference: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7951/
> No idea.
> But then, RFC 8366 says
> The voucher artifact is a JSON [RFC8259] document that conforms with
> a data model described by YANG [RFC7950], is encoded using the rules
> defined in [RFC8259], and is signed using (by default) a CMS
> structure [RFC5652].
> which is pretty much devoid of meaning.
Well, it does tell you that the YANG to be serialized.
It whould have reference 7951 though.
>> I wonder if this is worth an errata clarifying this for RFC8366?
> Yes, but maybe the WG should decide first what was intended…
I'm an author.... we intended for binary stuff to get base64-encoded, but I
don't think any of us quite understood enough about the different flavours.
I would have preferred that RFC7951 had maybe said that it shall be
base64URL, but that base64 shall be tolerated.
It's irksome because JWS specifies base64URL, and the JSON spec is silent.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
