Skip to main content

JWS signed Voucher Artifacts for Bootstrapping Protocols
draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-14

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, anima-chairs@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org, draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher@ietf.org, ietf@kovatsch.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'JWS signed Voucher Artifacts for Bootstrapping Protocols' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-12.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'JWS signed Voucher Artifacts for Bootstrapping Protocols'
  (draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-12.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and
Approach Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari and Mahesh Jethanandani.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   I-D.ietf-anima-rfc8366bis defines a digital artifact called voucher
   as a YANG-defined JSON document that is signed using a Cryptographic
   Message Syntax (CMS) structure.  This document introduces a variant
   of the voucher artifact in which CMS is replaced by the JSON Object
   Signing and Encryption (JOSE) mechanism described in RFC7515 to
   support deployments in which JOSE is preferred over CMS.

   In addition to explaining how the format is created, the
   "application/voucher-jws+json" media type is registered and examples
   are provided.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Matthias Kovatsch. The
   Responsible Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note