Re: [netconf] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors-23: (with COMMENT)

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Éric,


> On Jan 29, 2024, at 5:31 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors-23: 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-trust-anchors/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for the work done for this document.
> 
> Suggest to refresh some dates used in examples (2018 is a long time ago).

I updated the date in the example to 2024.
This update is only in my local copy for now...


> Should there also be a 'not valid before' date for certificates ?

Is this comment connected to the previous comment regarding the "certificate-expiration” notification?
Assuming “yes”, I do not think there is a need for a *notification* for 'not valid before’ - agreed?


> How can a node know where to send the certificate expiration notifications ? Is
> it also a pub/sub model ? (I should probably know the answer…)

How YANG notifications are delivered is topic outside the scope of this draft but, since you asked…
  - delivery varies by protocol: e.g. NETCONF and RESTCONF have their own delivery mechanisms
  - delivery can also be via UDP or HTTP (see the udp-notif and http-notif drafts - WG documents)


Thanks,
Kent