Sorry, I didn't follow the entire discussion up to here! But there's the
following important text to consider:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher#section-8.4
So this shows why idevid-issuer cannot be a mandatory field in the
voucher-request, in general. It's still REQUIRED to be included by the
Registrar as explained in that text.
Should we include this clarifying text rather in 8366bis? It's not
specific to constrained situations. We included it in cBRSKI because add
the time that was the only document updating 8995.
Now we have 8366bis that also includes 8995 content and also formally
updates it now, even though we don't have 8995bis yet.
Esko
On 18-1-2026 21:11, Michael Richardson wrote:
Toerless Eckert<[email protected]> wrote:
> backward compatibility b) I have seen no technical technical argument
> that it has to be mandatory.
Agreed.
As long as it's optional, then nothing should be surprised if it's there.
--
Michael Richardson<[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
--
*IoTconsultancy.nl* | Email/Teams: [email protected] | +31 6
2385 8339
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
