Hi Michael, > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> > Sent: Mittwoch, 18. August 2021 13:27 > > reshad> Other comments: - rc:yang-data (RFC8040) is used. While this > reshad> seems to be fine, if the voucher- request-async-artifact template > reshad> needs to be extended in the future, my understanding is that it > reshad> is not possible with yang-data. However, you could use > reshad> "structure" and (eventually) "augment-structure" from RFC8791 for > reshad> this. > > I am probably the guilty party that wrote the YANG. > I guess I missed your email (seeing Steffen's reply only), and I'll go back > to the > list to find it to understand. I saw that the constraint voucher follows the same approach.
> We do want to mix and match the various extensions. > It is not clear to me how to do that. Maybe related to this, would it be better to augment the voucher than as requested by Reshad or the voucher-request as we currently do it. I also had a look into the constraint voucher as there are also enhancements defined. So I guess I should go with the augmented voucher? > > We will discuss this point. Currently there is no explicit need for > > enhancements. > > reshad> - Prefix "ivr" is used for ietf-voucher-request although RFC8995 > has > reshad> "vcr". While this is valid, I am curious why. > > I didn't think the prefix had relevance outside of the module, but I don't > know a > lot here. I meanwhile changed it to vcr. If it has no relevance outside the module, it should not be a problem Regards Steffen > > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ > ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails > [ _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
