Re: [Anima] [anima-wg/anima-brski-async-enroll] Definition of new assertion type (agent-proximity) for the voucher (#18)

["Fries, Steffen" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kent
New assertion type for the voucher necessary for
agent-proximity. Likely to enhance the enum in the YANG module for the
voucher in [RFC
8366](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8366#section-5.3<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Frfc8366%23section-5.3&data=04%7C01%7Ccef9763c-149c-4881-b9c2-5fedc277663a%40ad011.siemens.com%7C8f0def833074455274eb08d931185e52%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C637594803581468513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=rzMb4kIf2KFodqTPQn0t%2FPR4Qa36swMHP5vpc90w5VI%3D&reserved=0>)

Kent, how do we do add a new enum?
Does the grouping help us at all?
We need to do this for both voucher and voucher-request.

Firstly, because it took me quite some time to put this message in context, for everyone else, here’s a link to GitHub Issue #18: https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-brski-async-enroll/issues/18<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fanima-wg%2Fanima-brski-async-enroll%2Fissues%2F18&data=04%7C01%7Ccef9763c-149c-4881-b9c2-5fedc277663a%40ad011.siemens.com%7C8f0def833074455274eb08d931185e52%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C637594803581478469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=B1c%2FG9IS2Umv7K%2FpB%2BKKZWvyhB1Bq0bLRX%2FrIRsSZTc%3D&reserved=0>.

I’m unsure what it is trying to be accomplished but, generally, either an “augment” and a module-revision can be used to add an enum.

[stf] Thank you for the hint. In one of the use cases of BRSKI-AE a registrar-agent acting on behalf of the registrar is used to facilitate the communication between pledge and registrar. In this case the MASA should assert “agent-proximity” instead of “proximity” to show, that there was no direct connection between the pledge and the registrar. Also, as the pledge does not verify a signature of the registrar, this assertion is weaker than “proximity” but stronger than “logged”. To achieve this we intended to enhance the current enum with the new assertion type.

Best regards
Steffen