%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-24 instead of this revision.
@techreport{ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-07,
    number =    {draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-07},
    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-rfc8366bis/07/},
    author =    {Kent Watsen and Michael Richardson and Max Pritikin and Toerless Eckert and Qiufang Ma},
    title =     {{A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols}},
    pagetotal = 36,
    year =      2023,
    month =     feb,
    day =       7,
    abstract =  {This document defines a strategy to securely assign a pledge to an owner using an artifact signed, directly or indirectly, by the pledge's manufacturer. This artifact is known as a "voucher". This document defines an artifact format as a YANG-defined JSON or CBOR document that has been signed using a variety of cryptographic systems. The voucher artifact is normally generated by the pledge's manufacturer (i.e., the Manufacturer Authorized Signing Authority (MASA)). This document updates RFC8366, merging a number of extensions into the YANG. The RFC8995 voucher request is also merged into this document.},
}