Re: [netconf] WG LC for three drafts

["Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]>]

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.

 

(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.

 

 

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.

> 

> If I have this correct, then each of the TCG Algorithm 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?

> 

> 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.

> 

> 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