Re: [netconf] WG LC for three drafts or two of them

From: netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Sent: 13 June 2020 12:29

<tp>
I thought about the text I would like to see in crypto-types and starting with identity since they are simplest I came up with 
NEW
This module contains YANG identity for private keys, public keys and symmetric keys.

>From the base "private-key-format" there are derived identity for 
- rsa-private-key-format as defined in RFC 3447
- ec-private-key-format as defined in RFC5915 
- one-asymmetric-key-format as defined in RFC 5958,
          encoded using ASN.1 distinguished encoding rules
          (DER), as specified in ITU-T X.690.";
- encrypted-one-asymmetric-key-format, as defined in RFC 5958,
          encoded using ASN.1 distinguished encoding rules (DER),
          as specified in ITU-T X.690.";

>From the base "public-key-format" there are derived identity for 
- ssh-public-key-format as specified by RFC 4253, Section 6.6, i.e.:
- subject-public-key-info-format as described in RFC 5280 encoded using ASN.1
          distinguished encoding rules (DER), as specified in
          ITU-T X.690.";

>From the base "symmetric-key-format" there are derived identity for 
-  octet-string-key-format encoded as a raw octet string.
-  one-symmetric-key-format as defined in RFC 6031 and
          encoded using ASN.1 distinguished encoding rules
          (DER), as specified in ITU-T X.690.
-  encrypted-one-symmetric-key-format as defined
          in RFC 6031 and encoded using ASN.1 distinguished
          encoding rules (DER), as specified in ITU-T X.690.";
            Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER),
            Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished
            Encoding Rules (DER)

Obviously all I have done is take the text and reformatted it. I debated about keeping the references to CMS.  The aim is to tell the reader whether or not to dig deeper into the YANG in order to use it.  For groupings I see more new text needed

Tom Petch

I have concerns about trust-anchors and crypto-types.  They are both more or less non-existent when it comes to text.  I do not want to have to reverse engineer the YANG or XML to find out what RPC or action there are, what types of cipher suites and such like are supported - and perhaps those that are not such as raw keys.  I would expect there to be five or ten pages of such in each.  Look for example at layer0-types or layer1-types for modules with what I would regard as adequate text.

Tom Petch

From: netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Eric Voit (evoit) <evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Sent: 12 June 2020 21:03

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mahesh

> > Jethanandani

> > Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 7:48 PM

> > To: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>

> > Subject: [netconf] WG LC for three drafts

> >

> > NETCONF WG,

> >

> > The authors of

> >

> > - draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types

> > - draft-ietf-netconf-keystore

> > - draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors

> >

> > have indicated that these drafts are ready for Last Call (LC).

> >

> > This kicks of a 2 week WG LC for the three drafts. Please review and

> > send

> any

> > comments to the WG mailing list or by responding to this e-mail.

> > Comments can be statements such as, I read/reviewed the document and

> > believe it is ready for publication, or I have concerns about the

> > document. For the

> latter,

> > please indicate what your concerns are.

> >

> > Any reports on implementation status or plans to implement are also

> > very useful.

> >

> > Thanks.

> >

> > Mahesh Jethanandani (as co-chair)

> > mjethanandani@gmail.com

> >

> >

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > netconf mailing list

> > netconf@ietf.org

> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf