This is a useful pointer! For picking a stand-in for "created-on" for example. It could use existing CBOR tags like '1' , or the new RFC 9581 tag maybe - selectable by the voucher creator.
Since this is early work in IETF, it looks more promising for the shorter term for cBRSKI to have an additional simple uint numeric field if we want to send over easily machine-parseable time-date. We could either do 1) in a new field, formally defined in the Voucher (e.g. in RFC8366-bis) ; OR 2) in a vendor-specific field - created by MASA and only meant for consumption by the Pledge. (The Registrar would just skip/ignore the vendor-specific field.) 3) don't do the extra field but use "created-on" with a string format (and just let the Pledge do the extra bit of parsing) Esko -----Original Message----- From: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 18:55 To: Esko Dijk <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Michael Richardson <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Anima] Voucher 8366bis: could we add a timestamp in the CBOR voucher using RFC 9581 format? Hi Esko, I don’t think we can use YANG to insert a “Plain-old-CBOR” (PoC) data item into the voucher. The objective of the YANG stand-in proposal [1] is to address this space, but initially with a different approach and solution. Maria is pursuing a way that would make PoC insertion from a YANG spec easier, but we haven’t written that up yet. Grüße, Carsten [1]: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bormann-cbor-yang-standin-00.html _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
