Subject: [Anima] Rob pls. approve: Re: Rob/Warren: Early allocation request for draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher (according to RFC7120)

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:36:37 +0200

Hi Rob

This request here somehow fell through the cracks. Pls. approve.

Thanks
    Toerless

In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 03:02:45PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> This sounds fine to me, but actual approval should come from Rob.
> W
> 
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 7:35 PM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Rob, 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.
> >
> > Toerless (for the chairs)
> >
> > Draft:
> >
> > Reference document for registration request is:
> >   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:
> >
> > 1. IANA "Media Types" applications registry accordin to draft section 12.5/12.5.1:
> >    https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml#application
> >
> >    Name                 Template                        Reference
> >    voucher-cose+cbor    application/voucher-cose+cbor   [draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher]
> >
> >    Template according to reference draft, section 12.5.1:
> >
> >    Type name:  application
> >    Subtype name:  voucher-cose+cbor
> >    Required parameters:  none
> >    Optional parameters:  none
> >    Encoding considerations:  binary
> >    Security considerations:  Security Considerations of THIS RFC.
> >    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 onboarding 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)
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
> complexities of his own making.
>   -- E. W. Dijkstra