Re: [netconf] X.690 refs

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Mon, 28 June 2021 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <0100017a541f6369-d0b46402-b0f2-43b3-8354-14af12c213f8-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449FC3A0BAA for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZuBiXBud8t1H for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a8-83.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-83.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A28C63A0B9E for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=ug7nbtf4gccmlpwj322ax3p6ow6yfsug; d=amazonses.com; t=1624908981; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:Feedback-ID; bh=ucrRSj2k0FgnzJGFKMvi4YCwyzq+5rVILEK4VFaaRWc=; b=K0CgvcFLGcNfrbXKH5NLV+LteGAdyFIWTwdjK1+dvZd3L73OeJuzcjwYLriTuEGf 83bwqp/9fpTx6pLd42cAnL8syXZUc/8liNODutlbsVHt6IVWYfHu4tPKhO6bjCvo595 rhS1wXcQDxiT+V3qxxR+7qRFV1Exoz65mUrplOeU=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR07MB6248849B15358CADBF684AABA0069@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 19:36:21 +0000
Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <0100017a541f6369-d0b46402-b0f2-43b3-8354-14af12c213f8-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <0100017a203b3fbe-94e25349-4cf7-4b3a-b726-9d837f4c0841-000000@email.amazonses.com> <AM7PR07MB6248849B15358CADBF684AABA0069@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22)
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
X-SES-Outgoing: 2021.06.28-54.240.8.83
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e66j-oQ3ICGmh-eZ_4naTYRBW74>
Subject: Re: [netconf] X.690 refs
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 19:36:27 -0000

Hi Tom,


> More a comment for crypto-types or keystore but I have not seen an e-mail about those lately.

I only found X.690 refs in the "crypto-types" and "sztp-csr” drafts.  Regardless...


> I see, courtesy of the RFC Editor, that X.690 has been updated to a 2021 version (which the RFC Editor would like to use).
> 
> Any one know what the differences are?

I looked at the 2021 version here (https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690), but it doesn’t contain a “difference to previous version” section.

I did find this (https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/asn1/Pages/Changing-from-ASN-119881990-to-ASN-12008.aspx), but it only covers the 1990 —> 2015 update.


> Assuming we know those, should we use it as  a reference?  Sometimes the new-fangled version of another SDO's work is not right for the IETF and we stay with the previous versions.

Firstly, we don’t know the changes…at least I don’t yet.

Second, I don’t believe the world of libraries and tools are going to flip overnight.   All the schema and compilers use the 2015 and, in some cases, I wouldn’t be surprised is the 1990 version was used.  For instance, note that  RFC 5280 was published in 2008!

My thoughts are to stay with 2015, at least until someone (ITU?) can provide a reasonable diff…

PS: X.680 was also just updated (https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.680)


> Tom Petch


K.