Dear ANIMA WG
The constrained BRSKI team is actively working on their impleemntations, also
in the hackathon (see hackathon wiki for daily time and meeting coordinates).
Today we ran into the issue that the implementations need early allocations
codepoints so as to not run into implementation/interop issues later on
(attempting to find some temporary code poins, change later).
The RFC7120 process expects WG chairs (in section 3.1.c) to vet with the
WG that there is consensus in the WG to ask for early allocation. Given
how we already went through the same process for RFC8366 (CMS voucher),
i think there will be no concerns, so i hope a short deadline for
this mail is appropriate.
Please chime in with support and/or reasons if/why you see an issue.
Appended the mail i would send to ADs in 48h unless there are concerns.
Cheers
Toerless
-----
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Early allocation request for draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher
(according to RFC7120)
Dear Rob, dear Warren,
As chairs of the ANIMA WG, we hereby request your AD approval
for early allocation of code points from IANA according to RFC7120
for draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher.
This is similar to the early registration request we did for what
is now RFC8366 (voucher), where we requested voucher encoding with CMS
(application/voucher-cms+json) in 2019.
We have now active development and interop work (during IETF111 Hackathon)
for the new encoding option for the constained voucher via COSE. It would
help the ongoing pre-production implementations a lot if they would not have to
come up with non-assigned code-points now.
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-13
to be pushed soon after datatracker opens again, until then:
https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/blob/master/constrained-voucher.txt
We request two early allocations depending on each other:
1. IANA "Media Types" applications registry
https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml#application
Name Template Reference
voucher-cose+cbor application/voucher-cms+json
[draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher]
Template according to draft, section 12.5/12.5.1:
This section registers the 'application/voucher-cose+cbor' in the
IANA "Media Types" registry. This media type is used to indicate
that the content is a CBOR voucher or voucher request signed with a
COSE_Sign1 structure [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct].
Type name: application
Subtype name: voucher-cose+cbor
Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: cose-type
Encoding considerations: COSE_Sign1 CBOR vouchers are COSE objects
signed with one signer.
Security considerations: See Security Considerations, Section
Interoperability considerations: The format is designed to be
broadly interoperable.
Published specification: THIS RFC.
Applications that use this media type: ANIMA, 6tisch, and other
zero-touch imprinting systems
Additional information:
Magic number(s): None
File extension(s): .vch
Macintosh file type code(s): none
Person & email address to contact for further information: IETF
ANIMA WG
Intended usage: LIMITED
Restrictions on usage: NONE
Author: ANIMA WG
Change controller: IETF
Provisional registration? (standards tree only): NO
2. CoAP content type registy
https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/core-parameters.xhtml#content-formats
Media type Encoding ID References
---------------------------- --------- ---- ----------
application/voucher-cose+cbor TBD3
[draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher]
The ANIMA WG chairs have verified that the required conditions for
early allocation from RFC7120, Section 2 are met:
a) Standards Action (document is standards track ANIMA WG draft)
b) The WG draft adequately describes the desired semantics.
c) The WG participants actively working on implementations of the
draft have confirmed that the semantic of the code point is
stable to the extend that it is clear that the final
RFC will need it, and active interoperability testing is ongoing,
only challenged by availability of an early allocation.
d) The working group chairs think that it would be highly helpful to
receive an early allocation code point now to support further
interoperability testing, ensuring that the final RFC has the
highest level of practical vetting and can be finished as soon
as possible.
The request for early allocation was brought up in the working group
and was faced with no disagreement. The working group chairs also
understand that there is no risk of depletion of the registry in question.
Thank you very much
Toerless (for the chairs)
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
