> On Feb 11, 2020, at 6:25 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > > Kent Watsen <k...@watsen.net> wrote: >> The confusion is likely because folks expect that the “yang-data” >> extension define a node, but it doesn’t. It acts more like a YANG >> “grouping” than a YANG “container” in that regard. For instance, give >> the YANG: > > Okay, so are you saying that it has to be a voucher-artifact, not a voucher, > and the examples in BRSKI are wrong? > (That's really annoying)
I’m unsure what you mean by “it” but, again, the examples in RFC 8366 are correct. Note that “voucher-artifact” does NOT appear in the examples. AFAICT, the examples in Section 3.3 in keyinfra-35 are also correct. K. _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
