Re: [Netconf] Adoption poll for crypto-types and trust-anchors

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Tue, 01 May 2018 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA5B3127078 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 May 2018 16:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FQ5yEo4Rw-Hh for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 May 2018 16:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x231.google.com (mail-lf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44B7E126DED for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 May 2018 16:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id g12-v6so18160158lfb.10 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 May 2018 16:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Z0XaLBbjvncNLyX9AfcrtqNdz4D86u8TS5Ufx72lxas=; b=m++LkL8Ve5FQ1kSNnMwKt9XC7+ybjQUoHkOxUSKs4Gg337nvvzkuUnoSxct1EIKq0w npJhL+tOzsXAIHDPiTS0el3tDR0t9mL3mOIIK7DXjEp50s6gIGts+S4ASKDuhTv1uKpz +9jhgDKtBLc+f093BdeUm53vUTfoVrEruzrBa+fw2Yf6zQj6DRc7fvzhSHa+YjGguctl xJcvaqbOs9b2O1wtMGZUYEieAqExPbmMwt4DCDYW/pW1jbjYM0Q1cb1IRapf2uvzkNGK +ApP5ZAdYDcoUGdvFoNIjqJkNCF9mzxSY2kbm8JTxCiqyV2JyZZrcw0SY+k/UNItM7IK f8Ag==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Z0XaLBbjvncNLyX9AfcrtqNdz4D86u8TS5Ufx72lxas=; b=h/manCMwIQLAvJv8ls2y0CHbOD8+ubQTcH6zN5oWcAdIfhkZnR9QRnT/L7nKTNvsOt HkdiiLkg1GpQKKjBmJspzlOLSDpQ2kKoak/CZhZBO6q5vlHQahHWWKLulKdEZ2EyaBog 3cgo/eDoqve7m3dSdl0grzBUDxPze7sghCFPxd/hEEIkxQv96zOhtywPiLrLtwF8lCes 8nwrUu3joAsa1YsxbHWYJzSzajmNU3G4pMudJ8KlnUcCbS4WFwDr1067t2ECgH1hd8P8 tKH+tYq1cL6UbmPhSx3X+Zn9TBbGWVYeyDwONd4BlfvZ5mZV6yv0pA3EnMOTjYCfPSSn wchg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tAC3bu+7MoD+5H6CUoeiqHg0yVWAWLqpZx39ZiO2t6H1rJ5uBp2 yizcSKgn6kyzgbZXlbQ/SHrcqwSHt/6h9ZtYpOy9mg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZqtPWEiL+F59kkMRwp6t6wIUSocnShYJTyaAtF54a9qcqgYh8o+ilSp22r6eKLaKXQwp4d/kQAE25ziA9p8QVI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7f0a:: with SMTP id a10-v6mr11438152ljd.78.1525215783478; Tue, 01 May 2018 16:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a19:d8c6:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 1 May 2018 16:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D972EDFC-AEF6-4BC7-82A9-BE1DA350FDAA@juniper.net>
References: <D972EDFC-AEF6-4BC7-82A9-BE1DA350FDAA@juniper.net>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 16:03:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHSE0gr=s4EHCKvv0N6TrV5v+2Ev63TABUEDpnkA8BqUXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000faf725056b2cf8f6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/CS6Eei4e0knnVyuKcirBNFRt8SI>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Adoption poll for crypto-types and trust-anchors
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 23:03:09 -0000

Hi,

Is there a problem with multiple YANG modules in the same RFC?
Does replacing the draft with 2 new drafts (later 2 RFCs) really help?
The RFC that gets referenced in an importing module is not important.

I support refactoring YANG modules before they get to RFC publication.
This has minimal cost if done before the RFC is published.


Andy


On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:

>
> [I'll get the ball rolling, please, others chime in too]
>
> I support the adoption of these two drafts to replace the existing
> keystore draft.
>
> Regarding the "certificate-expiration" notification defined in
> ietf-crypto-types, I would like to discuss removing it, or moving it to be
> a descendent of the "certificates-grouping" grouping (also in
> ietf-crypto-types) and maybe also place a copy of the notification in the
> ietf-trust-anchors module.  That said, I don't like having several
> otherwise identical notifications in different namespaces, but I do like
> how the server can incrementally add support for expirations on a
> feature-by-feature basis.
>
> Kent // contributor
>
>
> ===== original message =====
>
> This is the start of a *two* week poll for adopting the following two
> drafts as working group documents, specifically to replace
> draft-ietf-netconf-keystore, which would be removed as a working group
> document:
>
>   draft-kwatsen-netconf-crypto-types-00
>   draft-kwatsen-netconf-trust-anchors-00
>
> This call for adoption is the result of the Keystore draft presentation
> given in London.  When the various options were discussed, most preferred
> to move forward with these two drafts, as opposed to looking to do more
> factoring or extending to scope to include things not needed by our various
> client/server drafts.  No one expressed interest in moving forward with
> draft-ietf-netconf-keystore.  While we could separately confirm this result
> again on the list, we believe that an adoption call more efficiently
> achieves two goals at once.
>
> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
> support".  If indicating no, please state your reservations with the
> document.  If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to
> see addressed once the document is a WG document.
>
> Kent (and Mahesh and Ignas)
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
> ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netconf&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=
> qXS002RrOOkzqTDm70cWjg7eJeWqtpC_anWUcc9a_3I&s=1W689R8ht-
> U3FoffJ5uTT24SAPRtiQ9a9B3VxQxM_Wg&e=
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>