establish common terminology for pieces of the voucher

[mcr]

MK would propose to establish consistent terminology in RFC8366bis and use it accordingly in the new drafts:

Voucher: A signed statement from the MASA service that indicates to a pledge the cryptographic identity of the domain it should trust. JSON Voucher Data: An unsigned JSON document [RFC8259] that conforms with the data model described by the ietf-voucher YANG module [RFC7950] defined in [Section 5.3 of RFC8366bis] and is encoded using the rules defined in [RFC7951]. CMS Voucher: CMS structure [RFC5652] signing the JSON Voucher Data. jws-voucher:

JWS Voucher: JWS structure [RFC7515] signing the JSON Voucher Data. constrained-voucher:

CBOR Voucher Data: An unsigned CBOR document [RFC8949] that conforms with the data model described by the ietf-voucher YANG module [RFC7950] defined in [Section 5.3 of RFC8366bis] and is encoded using the rules defined in [RFC9254]. COSE Voucher: COSE structure [RFC9052] signing the CBOR Voucher Data.

[EskoDijk]

Good to define such terminology.

The existing terminology is somewhat ambiguous; e.g. RFC 8366 uses "voucher" for the signed data object but section 5.4 also uses "voucher" for the unprotected voucher data. It's also called "voucher content" or "content". The term "content" is directly from CMS terminology (RFC 5652). COSE has a different name for this: "payload".

[mcr]

fixed in b47d861.