[Anima] terminology for draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-09.txt

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] wrote:
    > There is also an HTML version available at:
    > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-09.html

    > A diff from the previous version is available at:
    > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-09

Esko noticed that the brski-cloud YANG items did not get a SID value
assigned.  This was tracked down to the wrong version of pyang having been
used.  I needed to use the version that I had done earlier in the year that
understood sx:structure. This is the only change: est-domain and
additional-configuration now have SID values assigned.

There are other issues that remain to be solved: specifically, establishing a
common set of terminology for outer (signed), inner, etc. parts of the
voucher so that other documents can use them easily.
  https://github.com/anima-wg/voucher/issues/27#issuecomment-1671331560

I would like to propose the following terms:

voucher: the entire thing, with signature and whatever other things the
         cryptographic wrapper brings.  May be preceeded by CMS, JWS or COSE.

voucher artefact/artifact: same as above, if more clarity is needed.
        (artifact is USA spelling)

voucher data: the raw (serialized) representation in whatever format
        (JSON, CBOR), without any signature.  Maybe be preceeded by
        "JSON" or "CBOR"



--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide