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

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lars,

Thank you for your review.  Below are responses to your comments.

Diffs can be found here: GitHub link <https://github.com/netconf-wg/sztp-csr/commit/4036fb5110b45fe9e3f1e4067ba54d7637ee48b4>.   [some diffs are found in the TBD-commit for Ben’s review]

Kent (and Sean and Russ)


> On Dec 16, 2021, at 8:49 AM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr-12: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Reference [I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types] from this Proposed Standard to
> draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types of unknown standards level. That should be
> fixed in the datatracker for draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types...

Silly chairs ;)  (Fixed)


> Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in
> the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD
> License".

I didn’t know that, thanks for the update.  (Fixed)


> Thanks to Meral Shirazipour for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/4XKQuQMRJ3xEca_Le-NpYcF-RYI).

Indeed.  Thanks to all who help publish these documents!  :)


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
> address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
> automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
> will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
> did with these suggestions.
> 
> Section 4.1.1. , paragraph 5, nit:
> -    private key and associated identity certificates and reexecution of
> +    private key and associated identity certificates and re-execution of
> +                                                           +

Fixed.


> Section 2.1. , paragraph 5, nit:
>> ver that it supports the ability the generate CSRs. This parameter conveys if
>>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> After "the", the verb "generate" doesn't fit. Is "generate" spelled correctly?
> If "generate" is the first word in a compound adjective, use a hyphen between
> the two words. Using the verb "generate" as a noun may be non-standard.

Fixed (now says "the ability to”)


> Section 2.1. , paragraph 5, nit:
>> the SZTP-client is able to generate an new asymmetric key and, if so, which
>>                                     ^^
> Use "a" instead of "an" if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound,
> e.g. "a sentence", "a university".

Fixed (now says “a new”)


> Section 3.2. , paragraph 20, nit:
>> the TaggedCertificationRequest and it a bodyPartId and the certificateReque
>>                                    ^^^^
> A verb may be missing between "it" and "a", or a word may be misspelled.

Fixed (now says “and it is the”)  [from Ben’s review]


> Section 3.2. , paragraph 20, nit:
>> the TaggedCertificationRequest and it a bodyPartId and the certificateReque
>>                                    ^^^^
> A verb may be missing between "it" and "a", or a word may be misspelled.

Fixed (now says “and it is the”)  [from Ben’s review]


> Section 3.2. , paragraph 21, nit:
>> the TaggedCertificationRequest and it a bodyPartId and the certificateReque
>>                                    ^^^^
> A verb may be missing between "it" and "a", or a word may be misspelled.

Fixed (now says “and it is the”)  [from Ben’s review]


> Section 4.1.5. , paragraph 7, nit:
>> in Wu. Contributors Special thanks goes to David von Oheimb and Hendrik Broc
>>                                   ^^^^
> It seems that the correct verb form here is "go".

Fixed.


> Document references draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default, but that has been
> published as RFC8808.

Fixed.


> Document references draft-ietf-netconf-keystore-22, but -23 is the latest
> available revision.

Ignored (both are works in progress)


> Document references draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors-15, but -16 is the latest
> available revision.

Ignored (both are works in progress)


> These URLs point to tools.ietf.org, which is being deprecated:
> * http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf

Fixed! (Now both YANG modules point to "https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf”)


> These URLs in the document did not return content:
> * http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/802.1AR-2018.html

Fixed! (URL now "https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_1AR-2018.html <https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_1AR-2018.html>"



Thanks again!
K.