Re: [Anima-bootstrap] voucher yang

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >>>> What I'm saying is that the pledge can't know how the owner was verified.
    >>>> The pledge actually has to process the same as for "verified" as for
    >>>> "logged".  It doesn't change the pledge's behaviour.
    >>>
    >>> But it does.  Some pledges may be coded to only support 'verified'
    >>> vouchers.
    >>
    >> I agree, but the verification involved can't be confirmed by the pledge.

    > The pledge confirms the voucher as a whole, which includes the assertion
    > statement.  What else might you mean?

Yes, but it can't know if the event having been logged as the MASA said it
would, was examined by the Registrar.

    >>> The DER itself works for me (the privacy concern seems minor).  It's
    >>> also more code (relative to just using an openssl command line option),
    >>> but actually it's one step less code than calculating the SHA256
    >>> fingerprint.
    >>
    >> A constrained device might not have a shell to run an openssl command
    >> line :-)

    > I'm okay with making it a DER.

I'm reading: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7093
at Sean Turner and SPASM WG suggestion.  I think that this is the thing we
actually need.

    > According to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-9.8.1:

    > A binary type can be restricted with the "length" (Section 9.4.4)
    > statement.  The length of a binary value is the number of octets it
    > contains.

    > And Section 9.4.4 says:

    > A length range consists of an explicit value, or a lower bound, two
    > consecutive dots "..", and an upper bound.

    > Which means we can have:

    > leaf nonce {
    > type binary {
    > length 8..32;
    > }
    > }

Works for me.


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-