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

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

>>>> 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": {

Ranga’s question was if this should be the case.  The answer is “no” and no errata is needed.



>> 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”?

The "ietf-voucher:” prefix appears because “ietf-voucher" is the name of the module (i.e. [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>).

The “name” parameter of the “rc:yang-data” statement has no effect on the serialized encoding.  Yes, the name is “voucher-artifact”, but that string never appears in instance documents.

What does matter is that the rc:yang-data’s immediate descendent is a ‘container’ node called “voucher”.  This string *does* appear in the serialized form.

Hence it is "ietf-voucher:voucher" rather than "ietf-voucher:voucher-artifact”.

Kent