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

From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 13:23:22 +0000

Approved.

Sorry for the delay (now back from PTO).

Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
> Sent: 31 March 2022 18:37
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>; Anima WG
> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
> Subject: Rob pls. approve: Re: Rob/Warren: Early allocation request for draft-
> ietf-anima-constrained-voucher (according to RFC7120)
> 
> Hi Rob
> 
> This request here somehow fell through the cracks. Pls. approve.
> 
> Thanks
>     Toerless
> 
> In-Reply-To:
> <[email-masked]
> om>
> 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