%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-19 instead of this revision.
@techreport{ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-13,
    number =    {draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-13},
    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/13/},
    author =    {Kent Watsen and Michael Richardson and Max Pritikin and Toerless Eckert and Qiufang Ma},
    title =     {{A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols}},
    pagetotal = 48,
    year =      ,
    month =     ,
    day =       ,
    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, includes a number of desired extensions into the YANG. The voucher request defined in RFC8995 is also now included in this document, as well as other YANG extensions needed for variants of BRSKI/RFC8995.},
}