IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 11 February 2020 21:02 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 5CB62120132; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:02:04 -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 pnAQ6isQnz_u; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:02:02 -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 17DE412006F; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:02:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [46.183.103.8]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 827DD1F459; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 21:02:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 64DC81A26A6; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:01:53 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
cc: iot-onboarding@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org, "M. Ranganathan" <mranga@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <0100017034d44195-102b3d22-0c0f-48dd-b9f2-0487e81270f2-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <CAHiu4JOMfY2oZb1TG5Lbbyb=Wd09+Ju9fOcBU5VcvmvmCQ7_ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <1556.1581357910@dooku> <0100017031a2d6ec-545e8e6a-1259-45da-a7da-1da0a461cce6-000000@email.amazonses.com> <27564.1581420319@dooku> <0100017034d44195-102b3d22-0c0f-48dd-b9f2-0487e81270f2-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> message dated "Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:18:12 +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 22:01:53 +0100
Message-ID: <2056.1581454913@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-onboarding/45LyCclxHaEdrtC4AeAajMSvI1M>
Subject: Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Anima] 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 21:02:05 -0000

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

    > 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": {

    > 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"?

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email