should Registrar be explicit about what it wants pinned?

[mcr]

In #70 and #71, we discuss policy of how the Registrar and the MASA decide what level of artifact to pin when it signs the voucher.

Should the Registrar be explicit (via a new field in the voucher-request) about what it wants to have pinned?

[EskoDijk]

Such field could be useful for Registrar, and that would need an update of (regular) BRSKI as this is an element of the BRSKI-MASA interface. Although the need for this feature is stronger in "constrained" bootstrap situations, the feature is not exclusive to this scenario and it should be introduced in regular BRSKI just as well if we decide to introduce it.

As long as we don't have such feature in BRSKI we can rely on the policy in #70 and #71.

[mcr]

expand this to not just be what is pinned, but what the protocol post-BRSKI is (CMP, EST, 6tisch), etc.

[mcr]

expand this to not just be what is pinned, but what the protocol post-BRSKI is (CMP, EST, 6tisch), etc.

This belongs into a new document.

[EskoDijk]

Given that we decided to move the Registrar-MASA protocol extensions and improvements to a new document; should we close this issue here? Alternatively we can give it a specific label "future" to mark that we don't need to close this issue for constrained-voucher but that rather it refers to a future, new document. This way the discussion at least doesn't get lost.