Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr-12: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Russ,

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 01:12:18PM -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
> Ben:
> 
> Responding to just one comment in this message ...
> 
> >>>               TaggedContentInfo and it includes a bodyPartID element
> >>>               and a contentInfo.  The contentInfo is a SignedData
> >>>               encapsulating a PKIData with one reqSequence element
> >>>               and no cmsSequence or otherMsgSequence elements. The
> >>>               reqSequence is the TaggedRequest and it is the tcr
> >>>               CHOICE. The tcr is the TaggedCertificationRequest and
> >>>               it a bodyPartId and the certificateRequest elements.
> >>>               [...]
> >>> 
> >>> ... since this reqSequence seems to refer to the PKIData inside the
> >>> SignedData in the contentInfo in the cmsSequence.  Should we say
> >>> anything about the presence/absence of reqSequence in the toplevel
> >>> PKIData (since we do in the other two cases)?
> >> 
> >> Yes, the authors propose:
> >> 
> >> OLD: […]
> >> 
> >> NEW:   PKIData contains one cmsSequence element and no
> >>            controlSequence, reqSequence, or otherMsgSequence
> >>            elements. […]
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Good?
> > 
> > I don't think we mention controlSequence anywhere else at present (though
> > it is mentioned in the "NEW" text above).  I don't think the omission
> > seemed noteworthy when I was doing my original review, so my primary
> > consideration here is just that we give it consistent treatment everywhere
> > (in terms of whether or not we mention it).
> 
> When looking at the text to address your comment, I could see not a role for controlSequence in this situation; however, I think there might possibly be a role in some of the other places.  For that reason, I thik it should be allowable in other places.  That is, the text should not exclude it.  If for consistency, you would rather not exclude controlSequence anywhere, I am fine with that too.

I have no strong preference here.  If you have looked at all the cases and
think this one is "different enough" that controlSequence is not needed, I
do not object to having it mentioned here.

Thanks,

Ben