Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Kent,


On 3/22/17, 6:21 PM, "Kent Watsen" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>[resending, sorry, wrong key-chain draft alias used before]
>
>
>
>Hi Mahesh,
>
>
>>> Again, a keystore is not limited to asymmetric keys.   At the moment
>>> it is exclusively asymmetric, but that's only because we (the authors)
>>> moved the passwords (read symmetric keys) that were present in the
>>> previous version to the ietf-ssh-client module, but they may return,
>>> as many real-world keystore mechanisms do manage passwords as well
>>> (e.g., Mac OSX's Keychain Access utility).
>>> 
>>> The module names are fine, but we could update the draft title. How
>>> about "A System-level Keystore Model"?
>>
>>
>> How about "Asymmetric Key System-level Keystore Model"?
>> 
>> And add a reference to keychain model for symmetric keys.
>
>
>Regarding "asymmetric", as mentioned above, while the keystore module
>is currently exclusively asymmetric, it's probable that passwords will
>be added to it in the future.
>
>Regarding "system-level", I'm not 100% sure.  Specifically, the PCE-PCEP
>use of the ietf-tls-client module, which uses the keystore module, gives
>me pause.  Is it still a system-level use then?
>
>Maybe one of the authors of the RTGWG key-chain draft to try to express
>how the two modules differ,

Is this a trick question? As the author of ietf-keystore, I¹d fully expect
that you know the difference.

>and why they shouldn't be merged into one
>draft.

They shouldn¹t be merged since they serve entirely different purposes and
will be implemented and deployed by different sets of network devices.
Furthermore, the key-chain draft is more mature and referenced by 6-10
other IETF YANG models.

Thanks,
Acee 


>
>Thanks,
>Kent
>
>
>