[Anima] voucher question re: pinned-domain-cert

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 21 June 2017 18:24 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 52504129458 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Ly4-wI30cOX8 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 671B712943D for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (199-7-157-41.eng.wind.ca [199.7.157.41]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F50F1F906 for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:23:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 22D4CA04; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 14:07:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: anima@ietf.org
X-Attribution: mcr
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 14:07:42 -0400
Message-ID: <3999.1498068462@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/bfyM-O8JNj8VVW9lYXHGVPo-Rcg>
Subject: [Anima] voucher question re: pinned-domain-cert
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:24:00 -0000

In voucher-03 (the latest I have on my laptop, while offline), we have:

        +--ro pinned-domain-cert*              binary

But then in 5.2 we show as an example:

   {
     "ietf-voucher:voucher": {
       "created-on": "2016-10-07T19:31:42Z",
       "assertion": "logged",
       "serial-number": "JADA123456789",
       "serial-number-issuer": "some binary identifier",
       "domain-cert-trusted-ca": "base64-encoded X.509 DER",

I am currently implementing the pinned-domain-cert, which we did not include
in the example.  I am guessing that we would write "base4-encoded X509 DER"

The question is, would this be in any way different than writing "X509 PEM"?
One would want to omit the "BEGIN FOO", lines, and all newlines, but I think
it would be essentially the same in a JSON (or JWT) format where we have
to base64.

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