[netconf] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors-23: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors-23: 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-trust-anchors/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Roman's DISCUSS position.

====

Additional comments from incoming ART AD, Orie Steele:

> A "choice" statement is used to expose the various options. Each option is
enabled by a "feature" statement. Additional "case" statements MAY be augmented
in if, e.g., there is a need to reference a bag in an alternate location.

Reads a bit awk.

"http://example.com/ns/example-truststore-usage" prefer to see https, same
comment regarding `.example` TLD.

> Reference of a public key bag in the truststore inlucding
         the certificate to authenticate the TLS client.

spelling.

> Servers that wish to define alternate truststore locations
> SHOULD augment in custom 'case' statements enabling
> references to those alternate truststore locations.

What happens to the model, if they do not? (Why not MUST).

> A description for this bag public keys.  The intended purpose for the bag
SHOULD be described.

Why not MUST? (or simply remove the normative).

I am surprised to not see any normative guidance regarding thumbprints or
"canonical names" for certificates.