IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 11 February 2020 11:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: iot-onboarding@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iot-onboarding@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B98211200B7; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 03:25:24 -0800 (PST)
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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 imZCfNAOvqw0; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 03:25:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F0F51200BA; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 03:25:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8109:b6c0:52b8:584d:5a6f:7ed3:c298]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 360581F459; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 11:25:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 7CAA31A1478; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:25:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>
cc: "M. Ranganathan" <mranga@gmail.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, anima@ietf.org, iot-onboarding@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <0100017031a2d6ec-545e8e6a-1259-45da-a7da-1da0a461cce6-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <CAHiu4JOMfY2oZb1TG5Lbbyb=Wd09+Ju9fOcBU5VcvmvmCQ7_ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <1556.1581357910@dooku> <0100017031a2d6ec-545e8e6a-1259-45da-a7da-1da0a461cce6-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net> message dated "Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:25:20 +0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:25:19 +0100
Message-ID: <27564.1581420319@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-onboarding/1EJOEPLrw25qJOYMFmSFwBdXHXg>
Subject: Re: [Iot-onboarding] RFC 8366: voucher artifact error in example?
X-BeenThere: iot-onboarding@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IoT onboarding mechanisms <iot-onboarding.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iot-onboarding>, <mailto:iot-onboarding-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iot-onboarding/>
List-Post: <mailto:iot-onboarding@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iot-onboarding-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-onboarding>, <mailto:iot-onboarding-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 11:25:25 -0000

Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net> wrote:
    > 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)

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email