Can a discussion section about "manufacturer additions" be
added. Pointing out the consequences for interoperability
when using "Augment" to add manufacturer specifics can be
helpful.
I'm confused, which section does this comment regard?
It refers to the document as a whole and especially section 7.
Usually, manufacturers want manufacturer-specific additions to
documents.
They may consider to use Augment for that purpose.
My suggestion is to discuss ways to add manufacturer additions to the
voucher and the consequences.
That may turn out to be a big NO-NO to manufacturer additions.
I think it would be worthwhile to point that out.
Section 2; mention terminology from RFC7950
<KENT> What is this? Are you asking for the draft to import terms
from RFC7950? Which terms
Reading RFC7950 is useful to understand section 4 for example; and
needed when reading the voucher YANG text.
So not especially terms, but complete knowledge of RFC7950 is required.
page 4, Voucher: add: that "acknowledges ownership of the pledge and"
indicates...
<KENT> what does "acknowledges ownership of the pledge" mean? how
is it different than "indicates to a Pledge the cryptographic identity
of the Domain it should trust"?
Now I am confused. I thought it was 2 ways. Pledge trusts domain, and
domain partners trust pledge.
Add type in:
Ownership ID voucher "type" is named
Bearer Voucher "type" is named
<KENT> you only mention these two, but none of the voucher type
descriptions have "type" in them, or maybe I'm missing something.
The name of the voucher is taken from the type I understand.
Only ownership ID voucher and Bearer voucher have text starting with
"xxxx is named".
I see that I forgot: An audit voucher "type" is named .....
section 7.1 last line: "there is a delay" is that delay between
creation
and consumption and when is the delay unacceptable? the text is (on
purpose?) vague.
<KENT> The previous sentence says "...there may be a significant
delay between when a voucher is created and when it is consumed."
and the remainder of the line you're citing says "to ensure that
the assertions made when the voucher was created are still valid
when it is consumed." This is vague?
To me yes. It sounds like a circular definition.
To paraphrase: When the voucher is consumed, the assertions are valid by
definition.
I would expect a pointer to a delay definition and then an assertion
that states:
when consumption time is larger than the creation time + delay, the
voucher is invalid.
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
