Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr-02

Sean Turner <> Wed, 16 June 2021 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D5003A1F3D for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BxXWNDx2EVP5 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 682923A214B for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c18so296572qkc.11 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=zTc9FJk04/BlvXLXKC3FWlX8wFpljdhmLaPmkhC82G4=; b=R+9DAMxcsLrnR2Dolqz47OQp5SdoE3QopQrS/CQnH+oKCKyvKVXg051w3HEreEVGqk 2jfreVSuLAz0XyMQhRsnxWRHea4FqSVYPjQJ4oJ6HHET6p6it8GzJeLzrOEH+Q6Sz7OK DjuE0HowdjGZ2q4JNj0dTQzQ4AwUCIdV0+HmE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=zTc9FJk04/BlvXLXKC3FWlX8wFpljdhmLaPmkhC82G4=; b=E0KCJrKuEFt7HVk8tBmaB7dBAMY0L2bYYurKAIIneSe4fi/AYt8tklQ36Ua3Cb2yO/ ze21szE7Noxs9UaQ7k6BgL1CR9TGatcJ0jK2QMCjuvRyDdtQzdp/sdizs46yVakWD0wM S+4n9W5kc/DEzynAfxE6WCO72R040Ua7TiBkTG7Yb/JoccLIy+73P0GKA6fTVv5r2C39 qr7BNFZjFqcQNV5Mj2ZTSWGlwTzNH3KkpvzI8G26eyRTFqd+ex1Cd0BlOCfzGsi2n4br WJubv80wOL72znZ9NB6F2XO7Wk/KMAPQbeJW1rwM7UaZuIiw839haBIjYWQl67VlJl3O 7SaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533VOJVnkqoRsE9UDXpXKPgXIwNjUum9cnmnTOurNbpFDBAMmeSu eXayBm1sjb/rFq3yK9b1gXIabQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQmHLyJBy9mEvapRIet2EgfH/SlaOakAsP4mU/2SaovHkRejduWoXUX5YtWXQXaTbOD91+sA==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:73c7:: with SMTP id o190mr1358534qkc.314.1623866755597; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id i21sm2178852qkl.20.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
From: Sean Turner <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:05:53 -0400
Cc: YANG Doctors <>,,, "" <>, Russ Housley <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Kent Watsen <>, Joe Clarke <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:06:03 -0000

> On Jun 15, 2021, at 16:06, Kent Watsen <> wrote:
> [Sean, please note the question to you below]
>> On Jun 8, 2021, at 2:16 PM, Joe Clarke via Datatracker <> wrote:
>> ===
>> Under leaf cmc's description:
>> s/is the TaggedCertificationRequest and it a bodyPartId/is the
>> TaggedCertificationRequest and it consists of a bodyPartId/
>> There are two instances of this, and I wasn't sure exactly what you wanted to
>> say here.  This was my attempt to make it readable.
> Reading the description statement for "leaf cmc” shows that it describes three structures, each for a different condition.
> I agree that the text for the last two structures is highly similar, though not exactly the same.  Perhaps the text could be simplified.  Sean, what do you think?  (Search for “leaf cmc” here:

This text explains which of the CMC’s ASN.1 fields need to be present (see RFC 6402 page 12 “PKIData” and the subfields there). I wrote it kind of like a decision tree because there are three options that need to be addressed. The 1st decision drives the later choices. There is some commonality at the 2nd between the 2nd and 3rd choice, but there’s multiple differences in the 1st two choices. Basically, I couldn’t figure out a way to write this without marching from the beginning to the end for each one of the three options.