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

Kent Watsen <> Wed, 12 February 2020 00:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74C0512006D; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:01:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xLQo5ePRJ02r; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:01:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFAEC12004C; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:01:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw;; t=1581465659; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=Do2YJ14hNNIyrh9SmwDZhEhS2PfmWU95FJU08WI5cKQ=; b=CA1U+v+T98dXoR1js8FzGW5ycBS0glDJgAuF8zFyP05ziTer1xFdNckFAoO4rpyt g98U3Dpwdq4Va24PJYSzSBHcdHBClNUYdPhMA6Jsc82edqxdgAU4UtmRV3ri/MBp4go gUfemuh3zAlXBryB4owroRZ5YKsBXdDFc68vvmuA=
From: Kent Watsen <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E78B1EED-B330-47A5-9848-4CFFAE7B38EA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:00:59 +0000
In-Reply-To: <2056.1581454913@dooku>
Cc:,, "M. Ranganathan" <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
References: <> <1556.1581357910@dooku> <> <27564.1581420319@dooku> <> <2056.1581454913@dooku>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2020.02.12-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima] [Iot-onboarding] RFC 8366: voucher artifact error in example?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:01:03 -0000

>>>> The confusion is likely because folks expect that the “yang-data”
>>>> extension define a node, but it doesn’t.  It acts more like a YANG
>>>> “grouping” than a YANG “container” in that regard. For instance, give
>>>> the YANG:
>>> Okay, so are you saying that it has to be a voucher-artifact, not a voucher,
>>> and the examples in BRSKI are wrong?
>>> (That's really annoying)
>> I’m unsure what you mean by “it” but, again, the examples in RFC 8366 are correct.
>> Note that “voucher-artifact” does NOT appear in the examples.
> By, "it", I meant the marker in the JSON:
>    ranga> {
>    ranga> "ietf-voucher:voucher-artifact": {

Ranga’s question was if this should be the case.  The answer is “no” and no errata is needed.

>> AFAICT, the examples in Section 3.3 in keyinfra-35 are also correct.
> okay, I was worried it didn't work out. (Whew!!!)

> What is it in the YANG that means the serialized JSON is
>     "ietf-voucher:voucher" rather than "ietf-voucher:voucher-artifact”?

The "ietf-voucher:” prefix appears because “ietf-voucher" is the name of the module (i.e. ietf-voucher@2018-05-09.yang <mailto:ietf-voucher@2018-05-09.yang>).

The “name” parameter of the “rc:yang-data” statement has no effect on the serialized encoding.  Yes, the name is “voucher-artifact”, but that string never appears in instance documents.

What does matter is that the rc:yang-data’s immediate descendent is a ‘container’ node called “voucher”.  This string *does* appear in the serialized form.

Hence it is "ietf-voucher:voucher" rather than "ietf-voucher:voucher-artifact”.