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

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
>