[netconf] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-39: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-39: 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-tls-client-server/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-39

Thank you for the work put into this document, with its companion I-Ds, this
represents a huge work.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Jeff Hartley  for the shepherd's write-up including the WG
consensus and the (light) justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Warning about Yangcatalog.org

The Python code in the annex generates several errors when the RFC is validated
by yangcatalog.org. While expected, it would be nice to have some text about
this issue in the shepherd write-up.

## Section 1

Suggestion: be consistent with the use of double-quotes

s/This document only defines that the IANA module exists/This document
*assumes* that the IANA module exists/ ?

## Section 2

`Note that TLS1.2 only uses TLS Cipher Suites` seems to contradict the previous
sentence "should". Rewording would make this paragraph easier to read.

## Section 2.2

To be honest, I was about to ballot DISCUSS on this point, but I have already
balloted too many discuss point on this nice set of I-Ds.

The example has `tls11`, which is no more a version defined in this document.

## Section 2.3

I see three authors for the YANG module but only one of them is the I-D author.
Any reason why ?

## Section 3.1.1

A short description of the 7 features would help the reader even if their names
are somehow self-descriptive. In my own case, it took me 3 minutes to
understand the use of server-auth-x509-cert by reading the actual YANG module
description of the features.

## Section A.1

I wonder why the module contains algorithms that were deprecated together with
TLS 1.1

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Abstract

Please be consistent with the use of double quotes around IETF & IANA.

Also, unsure whether stating the module names in the abstract is more useful or
cumbersome ;-)