Re: [netconf] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-keystore-30: (with COMMENT)

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Warren,

Thank you for you valuable comments.
Please find below my responses.

Kent


> On Jan 30, 2024, at 7:29 PM, Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netconf-keystore-30: 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-keystore/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I support Roman's DISCUSS.
> 
> Also, when reading this document I initially got excited, thinking that I'd
> find more text on the 'hidden keys', but my excitement was short lived...:-)

Sorry to disappoint!  ;)


> Assuming you add text to the other YANG crypto types document, perhaps you can
> include it here too?

Unlike the “crypto-types” draft, this draft has a dedicated section called "Support for Built-in Keys”, is it not enough?

One thing I noticed was that this section doesn’t ever use the word “hidden”, though it’s mostly the case that they would be hidden, though they could possibly be “encrypted”, though it may not be worth saying that.

This being the case, how about this edit?

OLD: Built-in keys are expected to be set by a vendor-specific process.
NEW: Built-in keys are "hidden" keys expected to be set by a vendor-specific process.


Thanks again!
Kent