Re: [Anima-bootstrap] comments on draft-kwatsen-netconf-ownership-voucher

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 15 September 2016 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61CD212B107 for <>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 18:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZODknED-LKDD for <>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 18:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACF0012B0F7 for <>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z123so10839272pfz.2 for <>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PUFFk1lmhQy8XJ9aqUPu0g6gpTLXIHwa+q4Aax67JfQ=; b=gcPBQYvkbg6nZVL1BvlPRdrozHS2li03BrwqYaGJjticKH7O3yU2uTGT+auq8V2r4i dv2kIYVM/Jp+5rbnrIHByDId980rMCpBssVm3AubmSb5CtsHwVLjimtanc3MzS82I99i W6d1o+59ETuUG58XL1tJ06VEM7DnItPG8NsFK1oEmDFOCzx2YaRSKBP1kDj7wUv3yU2Z O/pfOVeJnW11rzfoAHf56O6IV/cDPhu6lVw8RDANQsTf3fQYiaxxNgZ1B7KBVWfDGzsd OFSpwdcuxw6rbc2cQM2VSDagCDo2Y/G3sEiDJ01ty+IIPlw8oVGckSD61HEOVL/ygISP fc/w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=PUFFk1lmhQy8XJ9aqUPu0g6gpTLXIHwa+q4Aax67JfQ=; b=RFlL6nWcUbEUWQiXGnuLczXolqO1GVZTiMF++iZlMCaKmG9Q/AY7lLknNh8eYWUNga 12EKDDll27QVPAh84Q5fTcbH/X/GTH3I53FcJD5WYFNKohRzmTBiR/T1I2sPnWzmUGDu gJEGbOQYGC4m0xHy6Be8q6V/yFAknCsGSDOPec2D2ojvXSgXQlDlAlhZ0+1QnF2rEQWW HW9CfKRyHrTqsn+kmbfo9qG82RDBcck7KxBAcHPZzJuMkq/usMNE9tfzlV0/rOiJMcb6 kwcH6YzDSAcP5oBeBmdqb48TPdt36L2njhcxdKomZHWaJFdxrtuUIsrF6NB4xUamAmyO zlfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwP8ZTzpxWVjVmfDsd6ZwlWzIGtYAfJjeO1SkK3LnkDEt5ZgH/XkXd4KrovMEy7s2Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id z125mr9686692pfz.109.1473900683928; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id bm8sm529462pac.16.2016. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
References: <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:51:27 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima-bootstrap] comments on draft-kwatsen-netconf-ownership-voucher
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the bootstrap design team of the ANIMA WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 01:00:39 -0000

On 15/09/2016 12:31, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Kent, I read the quick document you crafted yesterday.  I think it captures
> most of what matters, thank you!
>    module: ietf-ownership-voucher
>          +--rw voucher
>          +--rw assertion          enumeration
>          +--rw owner-id           string
>          +--rw unique-id*         string
>          +--rw created-on         yang:date-and-time
>          +--rw expires-on?        yang:date-and-time
>          +--rw nonce?             string
>          +--rw additional-data?
> I think that additional-data is probably undesireable.
> I think that we need to say that owner-id is actually a hash of public key.
> I don't think we can let it be a DN, as that implies some of connection to
> some PKI to verify it, and the only point is that we don't have anything
> that the vendor didn't burn in.
> I would appreciate an example mapped out in JSON.

How about CBOR diagnostic notation? Won't we want to represent things
in CBOR at least as often as in JSON?

> Could it really be a JWT?  Do we already have such a mapping elsewhere?
> Is there any reason we couldn't use the JWT/rfc7519 notation, so that the
> mapping just works out?  Maybe I'm missing the value of the YANG here.