Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-22.txt

[Esko Dijk <[e-mail]>]

> I think that where it says that it updates RFC8366bis, it probably should
> just recap what 8366bis says (and that document should say it).
> I guess that requires further document coordination work.

Indeed, maybe there's no need to Update (in particular: Extend) RFC 8366bis since this document isn't RFC yet. And the tags Update / Extend etc are only defined in context of updating an existing RFC.
I think the intention was to say that while 8366bis defines the CBOR Voucher Data, it doesn't define the COSE signature format. This is introduced only in cBRSKI.

Would it be solved by just dropping the claims that we Update / Extend 8366bis? Instead we can just reference 8366bis and say we add something to that format.
Then we don't need to Update 8366 anymore, because 8366bis is already doing this for us.

Esko

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2023 20:32
To: Esko Dijk <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-22.txt


Esko Dijk <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > This update reflects the work that was done earlier (August) to
    > restructure the content of "cBRSKI". Now the default, simplest flow is
    > highlighted and optional extras are moved into separate sections: in
    > particular, the extended discovery now in Section 14.  Some content has

Thank you for all the work on this document.

I think that where it says that it updates RFC8366bis, it probably should
just recap what 8366bis says (and that document should say it).
I guess that requires further document coordination work.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*