Left comment in review request.
I would probably rather stick to optional for voucher
a) maintain backward compatibility
b) I have seen no technical technical argument that it has to be mandatory.
c) arguably, MASA code is agile to fix (unlike voucher code).
So if some MASA developer thinks it works without the field and
fails, it's likely not much/long-term harm.
Cheers
Toerless
On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 02:27:52PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> --------
>
> Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If we feel idevid-issuer would always need to be mandatory in
> > voucher-request, then i wonder how we would even express that in
> > rfc8366bis given how it's just imported from voucher into
> > voucher-request.
>
> I think that we can refine it to be mandatory in the YANG for voucher-request.
> I will try that out.
>
> However, I think also think that we could just make it mandatory in voucher.
>
> --
> ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
> ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails
> [
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
