Re: [netconf] AD review of draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kent,

Looks good.

So, am I right in that we just need resolution of the other ANIMA thread on whether the groupings can be reused?  Please can you remind me what the current status is of that thread/issue.  I thought that the action was with the authors to decide, but I might have missed further discussion.

Thanks,
Rob



From: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
Sent: 07 July 2021 19:45
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [netconf] AD review of draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr

Hi Rob,

-05 just posted.   More comments below.




So, I agree on moving back to “400”.

Done!  (commit<https://github.com/netconf-wg/sztp-csr/commit/55947184e8b6446444e4b2229e106259619bf6b2>)



BTW, one of my colleagues was looking at this draft, and couldn’t immediately understand what it was for.  Hence, would it be helpful to add a sentence or two in the introduction to explain why having a signed LDevID on the device is helpful?

We (the authors) added this to the Introduction: (commit<https://github.com/netconf-wg/sztp-csr/commit/6dac677edf879d9a6fd1fe4c5ad9c1f98e7745e9>)

            The ability to provision an identity certificate that is purpose-built
            for a production environment during the bootstrapping process
            removes reliance on the manufacturer CA, and it also enables the
            bootstraped device to join the production environment with an
            appropriate identity and other attributes in its LDevID
            certificate.

 Regards,
Rob

K.  // as co-author