IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] WG LC for three drafts

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Wed, 17 June 2020 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 8B8BA3A07B6 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 07:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 Q0NLybn9Nik9 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 07:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C54D3A07A5 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 07:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050095.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 05HEwmHB003374; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:59:38 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=4yDqj4vpUPks+ZbOEZcKAKPPAQeRJ4SJqknVjqkXifQ=; b=oVuSoSmNvYPPNH7lmUCs1KcnNh/JmQxOIZJA0KGUHYk/8WmGpnUT4f5UFVNXg3vYuuKP RSGKAaSuOnbR93eW40LdyR6VUCMDFUtRoqQ1fe/a4fJ8G2uaA47EG964gdTR245G7oAE jHOvT3ZADDtry7TPeETmzKomfmrl2yRc+VoPgQIPntpfoi8lDxFqtYR1qpavQ0r7ZdeY I7xIsbmEvKI9TbbwApDhLRNhPRWzN+mBE/QO44ei0FNNCTYYyx/mz094uJSHsxfv/9KV Goo14ORvLwr+xHfMrakOvpuMyd72bWbqzm2ZpcfNGuVG4lrbbTo7kLl2lmm+W1CLOlIS zA==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19] (may be forged)) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 31qhedf8dt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:59:37 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 05HEkYbx021665; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 10:59:36 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.113]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 31qjm10ndk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 17 Jun 2020 10:59:36 -0400
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.119) by ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.121) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:59:35 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.119]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.119]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:59:35 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
CC: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] WG LC for three drafts
Thread-Index: AQHWOThMaW9TVQbVp0aakzz8vRafn6jdDHEAgAABtAA=
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:59:34 +0000
Message-ID: <14453F87-3F9D-40AA-A4E5-DAD7D66B480C@akamai.com>
References: <A1A5BD42-AB3F-477A-B291-81E213A2F0DB@gmail.com> <20200617105328.rqqw2wssa3q74etj@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
In-Reply-To: <20200617105328.rqqw2wssa3q74etj@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.38.20061401
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.112.103]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <B7325777E78F7544B3E70D0BA9BA6E12@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-06-17_04:2020-06-17, 2020-06-17 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=597 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2006170114
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-06-17_04:2020-06-17, 2020-06-17 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=575 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1011 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2006170117
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/NrjnBTq5hdZkkGZpNcOqDXGQ7iE>
Subject: Re: [netconf] WG LC for three drafts
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG 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: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:59:42 -0000

>      - These drafts needs serious reviews by security domain experts.
        This all looks reasonable to me but since this is all about
        security, we need to set the bar high to get things right.

For what it's worth, I've had a couple of discussions with Kent on these over time.  I think requesting an additional security directorate early review is probaby a good idea.

>      - Do we have to be prepared for alternate cert formats in the
        future?

No. :) If something come to displace X509v3, many things will have to undergo some fundamental changes.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email