Re: [netconf] WG LC for three drafts

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

Thank you for your review.  This message addresses both your prior messages…



> On Jun 12, 2020, at 4:03 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Kent,
>  
> I have been reading farther, and I see that the full [e-mail] has been removed from -v15.  That is where the TCG identity algorithms might have been merged in my thread below.
>  
> A few thought based on that:
>  
> (1) In the draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types, in the YANG model you should likely remove the description text which claims support for "algorithm" in three of the grouping statements.

Good catch!  Fixed here:

https://github.com/netconf-wg/crypto-types/commit/690c016b201241e13a1e324b49ba5e9db0d6c417 <https://github.com/netconf-wg/crypto-types/commit/690c016b201241e13a1e324b49ba5e9db0d6c417>


>  (2) Are there plans to evolve iana-hash-algo.yang anywhere?  In your May 14th message, you  say :  "Assuming a future effort mimicked Option #2, then "yes”, as I’d expect an "ietf-ssh-common:generate-asymmetric-key” RPC to contain an “input” node that is an identityref to the “ssh-asymmetric-algorithm” identity.".   I would be willing to help on that work.

I have no plans to work on the "algorithms” problem again.  Not that I wouldn’t like to, but I need to scale back how much unsupported time I volunteer for.  Generally speaking, I’m gracefully winding down my work in progress, while being hyper-cautious about signing up for new work.  This is why, e.g., I’m not pushing "YANG-next” or “restconf-collections” anymore, though both are really important to me.  That said, I’m open to contract-work, if that makes sense at all...

More below.

>  
> Thanks,
> Eric
>  
>  
>  
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netconf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Eric Voit (evoit)
> > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 1:42 PM
> > To: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Netconf <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [netconf] WG LC for three drafts
> >
> > Hi Kent,
> >
> > I have been reading draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types, and the thread:
> Virtual
> > "hum" for the "key generation" issue discussed at virtual meeting.
> >
> > I have a couple questions on the previous "asymmetric-algorithm-type"  and
> > what is now in "asymmetric-key-pair-grouping".  My reading is that instead
> > of the previous ENUMs of -v14, other applications/WGs will now need to
> > create identities for the various algorithm types.  And this is fine.


That was the idea at the time but, as you noticed, we since ditched the “algorithms” node altogether  :sigh:


> > If I have this correct, then each of the TCGAlgorithm Registry ID values
> of
> > TPM2 specifications in Table 9
> > https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/TPM-Rev-2.0-
> > Part-2-
> > Structures-01.38.pdf
> > could have its own identity.   And there would be no barrier to each of
> > these identities also having another base identity that might be "tpm2-
> > algorithm".  In this correct?

I believe so.  I haven’t looked at the TCG Algorithm Registry, but certainly, "identity-stmt” allows multiple "base-stmt".   Some might be concerned for interoperability, but a solution might support polymorphic definitions.  Regardless, the original plan was (and I assume would be again, if/when the work is picked up) to enable the server to specify (e.g., via a “config false” list) which algorithms it supports.


> > If this is correct, my second question is whether there will be an attempt
> to
> > ask other YANG models to import these application identities elsewhere?
> > As you and Rob note in the thread, trying to predict the desired identity
> > inheritance hierarchy is non-trivial.

I’m unsure about this, but I think polymorphism would go a long way to alleviate the issue...


Kent // as a contributor


> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eric
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: netconf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Mahesh
> > > Jethanandani
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 7:48 PM
> > > To: Netconf <[e-mail]>
> > > 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)
> > > [e-mail]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > netconf mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf