%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-24 instead of this revision.
@techreport{ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-14,
    number =    {draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-14},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher/14/},
    author =    {Michael Richardson and Peter Van der Stok and Panos Kampanakis and Esko Dijk},
    title =     {{Constrained Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI)}},
    pagetotal = 71,
    year =      ,
    month =     ,
    day =       ,
    abstract =  {This document defines a protocol to securely assign a Pledge to an owner and to enroll it into the owner's network. The protocol uses an artifact that is signed by the Pledge's manufacturer. This artifact is known as a "voucher". This document builds upon the work in {[}RFC8366{]} and {[}BRSKI{]}, but defines an encoding of the voucher in CBOR rather than JSON, and enables the Pledge to perform its transactions using CoAP rather than HTTPS. The use of Raw Public Keys instead of X.509 certificates for security operations is also explained.},
}