[netconf] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-29: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-29: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for working on this specification. I have no objection from transport
protocol point of view.

I was wondering if the following description is sufficiently clear to the
implementers -

leaf public-key-format {
      nacm:default-deny-write;
      type identityref {
        base public-key-format;
      }
      mandatory true;
      description
        "Identifies the public key's format. Implementations SHOULD
         ensure that the incoming public key value is encoded in the
         specified format.";
    }

Which format is specified here ? and how the implementation can ensure the
compliance to the specific format for the incoming public key value?

I am missing some reference/example/direction here.