Re: [Anima] [Iot-onboarding] RFC 8366: voucher artifact error in example?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 10 February 2020 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27ABC12080E; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 10:05:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.501
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u9EGj860GkFw; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 10:05:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (minerva.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2a01:7e00::3d:b000]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FFC012001A; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 10:05:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8109:b6c0:52b8:584d:5a6f:7ed3:c298]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A494D1F459; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:05:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 1AB851A29B4; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:05:10 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "M. Ranganathan" <mranga@gmail.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, anima@ietf.org
cc: iot-onboarding@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <CAHiu4JOMfY2oZb1TG5Lbbyb=Wd09+Ju9fOcBU5VcvmvmCQ7_ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHiu4JOMfY2oZb1TG5Lbbyb=Wd09+Ju9fOcBU5VcvmvmCQ7_ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "M. Ranganathan" <mranga@gmail.com> message dated "Sun, 09 Feb 2020 22:27:49 -0500."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:05:10 +0100
Message-ID: <1556.1581357910@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/6KyOJlnpiy6x4xli7RwOlR7I1A4>
Subject: Re: [Anima] [Iot-onboarding] RFC 8366: voucher artifact error in example?
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:05:15 -0000

M. Ranganathan <mranga@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I am wondering if the format of the example should be
    > {
    > "ietf-voucher:voucher-artifact": {
    > "voucher": {
    > "created-on": "2016-10-07T19:31:42Z"
    > ......
    > instead of

    > { "ietf-voucher:voucher":
    > { "created-on": "2016-10-07T19:31:42Z",
    > "assertion": "logged",

    > Based on the yang hierarchy (tree diagram).

No, the tree diagam is wrong.
I'm not sure what to do exactly.

    > I am going by what ygot is producing. I had to change the yang-data to
    > a container for ygot to work - perhaps this is the reason why the
    > output is different?  Not sure if this is quite right but I thought
    > I'd just point it out.

It seems that there should be an errata.

Kent, is there a way we can change the YANG to match things correctly?
It seems that we might change:

   // Top-level statement
   rc:yang-data voucher-artifact {
     uses voucher-artifact-grouping;
   }

to:
   rc:yang-data voucher {

===
Or, do you think that we should changing the BRSKI document to match?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-