IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Anima] Re: WGLC review of draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-14

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 20 October 2025 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: anima@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D077278F7F43 for <anima@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2025 15:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.688
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_TVD_MIME_EPI=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5NsmTY8OhjyH for <anima@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2025 15:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5982978F7F31 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2025 15:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02FE31800F; Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:26:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id cWDcwg_5pKfV; Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:26:45 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1760999205; bh=eF1Q4tYX2pmXNlEwnimBA+x3friccAE7GdeQSHGONNo=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=IFNOqIph5SlOIAd7yhul6N9wWgEsAKq9hrXv16CD6hM6FxpM3K9VD10FYcQbdDtsf NzYmuGbc5WaKcbtpbRIwwcEp1noBbO2Y9QXj/oivUjN5u2M9fxqB7MEeBcD5tz1JMe 4H8rRXaUhXdoVOa37IVqfl0MrrXcbk2hiAxeKICwL3udogKuJEzZDL2BwtQUIzM1H1 TwiQ0AUkA8WlXEhr9V576KqCQeOWyYa+WdPIvKL7oaDZjSb30Xt2JZb/M6Rxs3NPlq uRTh7fT3SWUvUsZ65mpfL1JF/2gIjFrdcJafgZFyhRdM8VUAVokMoF1a1N9GyISSj6 1aXNcxlWkwgCw==
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12FA91800E; Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:26:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD901EA; Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:26:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>
In-Reply-To: <5124478f-eb4e-485c-aa15-501a9ba99e98@iotconsultancy.nl>
References: <5124478f-eb4e-485c-aa15-501a9ba99e98@iotconsultancy.nl>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0;<'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:26:45 -0400
Message-ID: <27008.1760999205@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: XP6T4V4NKELDG7KAZS3T2PRKXD5BBGQG
X-Message-ID-Hash: XP6T4V4NKELDG7KAZS3T2PRKXD5BBGQG
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-anima.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Anima] Re: WGLC review of draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-14
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/WQ9c45GOnWpNYlC6VK9OMmIFNEY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:anima-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:anima-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:anima-leave@ietf.org>

Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl> wrote:
    > I've reviewed draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-14 as part of the WGLC; with
    > issues/questions listed below and some editorial updates proposed in a PR.
    > (See: https://github.com/anima-wg/voucher/pull/85)

Thank you.
I've been fighting PYANG things for a few hours (DAYS?!), and I've run out of
time now.  So I'm posting -16 with updates that I have.  More details later.

    > *** Section 7.4

    > Some items have 2 SIDs assigned: additional-configuration-url, est-domain,
    > expires-on.

Yes, this is the thing I'm fighting.

    > *** Section 7.5

    > "In JSON serialization, these extensions require a unique name, and this MUST
    > be allocated by IANA. The name MUST be the same as the YANG module name. "
    -> this is unclear to me. If every extension has the same name, it's not
    > unique and not useful.

    > *** Section 8.1
    > Again like in 7.1, why are some items/leaves outside of the "voucher"
    > element?

Yes. ARGH.

    > In the YANG, the name of RFC XXXX differs from the actual name - same thing
    > as in 7.3.

The RPC will s/XXXX/1234/ when they assign the number.

I got as far as:

    > The boilerplate BCP text is included twice in the same field:

Sorry.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status