Re: [netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-keystore-09.txt

Kent Watsen <> Sat, 11 May 2019 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C671200CD for <>; Sat, 11 May 2019 09:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F_dlS8f1xEjV for <>; Sat, 11 May 2019 09:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4F9F12001E for <>; Sat, 11 May 2019 09:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw;; t=1557591552; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=OeZp/3uaZ8Wd2aHvn9KJOR2T0y2PwG6aNNrOR3mZ/Ag=; b=P5McPOJHffDX+JeRXQDBY9b9BiEERYWn00cDK6NAmuBE7uS5VrC33PDK8a6xvU83 lxp5DMtzH+0VEqtySwVEFaldZRkz1DyTH3J/H6L1uKF5DnVO3YBgyK1fBtP0SaUsEJb iEwYSyj71CnYeAnKbwn1KWUWltO/gaF7dDz+Q/bs=
From: Kent Watsen <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2EB32E02-CD44-4FB6-BA7E-D1AE21EEB152"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 16:19:12 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>
To: Nick Hancock <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.05.11-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-keystore-09.txt
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: Sat, 11 May 2019 16:19:15 -0000

> Yes, but I believe that these SHOULD statements should also be 
> included on the description statement of 'cert' leafs as well as they 
> may get overlooked, if they are only to be found in the description 
> statement on the groupings.

Good idea.  I just added this as well:

  grouping end-entity-cert-grouping {
       "An end entity certificate, and a notification for when
-       it is about to (or already has) expire.";
+       it is about to (or already has) expire.  Implementations
+       SHOULD assert that, where used, the end entity certificate
+       contains the expected public key.";

> It would be a possible solution, but that is something for the future though.

True, but we do what we can to make the future better  :)

> Yes, copy/paste is always an option, but this also has its drawbacks, 
> including having multiple duplicate definitions within the YANG model; 
> the opportunity to modify the copy, intentionally or unintentionally, 
> such as to change the names of leafs; but most importantly copying and 
> pasting would mean that copy will not follow any changes made to 
> the original grouping, such as corrections and the addition of new 
> nodes in newer revisions, meaning additional maintenance and possible 
> discrepancies across YANG models going forward.  
> And this is why I am a keen user of groupings to ensure consistency 
> across models, even though it makes the YANG modules even harder to 
> read. If something is the same then it should always be the same 
> wherever is appears in the model and using a grouping does just that.

Okay, let's see what we can do.  Firstly, please see my response just now in the other thread where I'm suggesting the remove the `action` statements entirely (via an idea similar to "crypt-hash").   If accepted, then we only have to create "data-only" groupings for those groupings that containing `notification` statements. 

Kent // contributor