Re: [Anima-bootstrap] voucher yang

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

>>> 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?



>> 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.



>> Okay, let's change the nonce to a binary type.
>
> Can we say the nonce is 8 to 32 bytes in size?
> If we have to pick a single number, I'd say 16 bytes.

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;
    }
  }


Cheers,
Kent