[core] date-and-time and "created-on" field in constrained-voucher

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 27 June 2022 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02996C15AAFA; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.709
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O8-Ag7fHjBa1; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78A09C13CDB0; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A0438BC9; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:09:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id cBF-L8_b84E2; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:09:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFA138BC7; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:09:14 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1656353354; bh=u/jM7ZB5SBVVlUq/Iv0k1Th1QCloGyuVaYp2hWjoI98=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=NM4GfNyk8qKEEvudRxjOKv+aUvEdUAKdl0d1G88hLuLMtQcqjjilDV+Q6/Kpg5w85 STVjeXoz/m73V6ZejTwH3aAL0TfPe8iTDglBeMa1UEwuG80eITP+PtEHtPbR7oapU+ O2NQpx4QrL6k87Q03Khr/XuOTkNGyBLPB+vrK9T40TXwxuV54tC7RVWTjIMhO/q4AR RZky4znw1/GSkj+fufyZ5H08FjH+K2gJK2/5Cm4W8rJqmyVFevbYzFxES5b+JM1aPc Db7p0I7enwFoeZGCK1kwbDS6X7/4QsOjvtPf9KFV/lASvpHIepN47/5191rs7GQgXc JR3IgaIPennAQ==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693FB4F5; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 13:52:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: core@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <DU0P190MB1978F90B0893D32291F6EE7DFDB99@DU0P190MB1978.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <DU0P190MB1978F90B0893D32291F6EE7DFDB99@DU0P190MB1978.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 13:52:44 -0400
Message-ID: <24048.1656352364@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/Xl5OBq7yaa8lDjBzpnhuMy_de5E>
Subject: [core] date-and-time and "created-on" field in constrained-voucher
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 17:53:54 -0000

We ran into some interop issues with draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher.
This document makes use of draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor and draft-ietf-core-yang-sid.

1.  I had assumed that less code meant that the voucher request from
    Registrar to MASA would be in the same SID-compressed format as from Pledge
    to Registrar.
    One implementation uses the uncompressed, SID-free, name format from yang-cbor
    for the RVR, even though the contained-within PVR is in SID-format.

    In later yang-cbor document versions I thought that mostly we were saying
    doing (A:SID) or (B:NAMES), but never mix.  This is not really a MIX situation, but
    I guess I am thinking we should pick one or the other.

    I think that I can convince my implementation to process both formats.
    It might just work as is, but I need to test it.

    I am concerned that this is needless liberalism in what we accept, and that
    the https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-07.html#name-ecosystem-effects
    would apply.


2.  The other thing we ran into was that the CBOR implementation I'm using, when given a
    DateTime object naturally produces a RFC 8949 Section 3.4.2 compliant "tag 1" marked Epoch-Based
    Date/Time.  And demarshalls this.  So I don't really notice.

    But, draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor doesn't say much about "yang:date-and-time".
    The only reference seems to be at:
       https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-20.html#name-the-container-and-other-nod

    where date-and-time is shown as part of a container object.
    The Content is defined to be string date pattern.

    Section 6, where I might expect to see info about encoding dates:
    https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-20.html#name-representing-yang-data-type

    is silent about date and time formats.
https://github.com/core-wg/yang-cbor/issues/144


3. the third interop issue is a fault of mine where I encoded a binary object
as a string. Oops.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide