Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr-12: (with COMMENT)

[top-posting for clarity]

Russ and Ben,

Picking up on this thread, it looks like a coin-flip to me.  Should we have:

NEW:   PKIData contains one cmsSequence element and no
          controlSequence, reqSequence, or otherMsgSequence
          elements. […]

NEWER:   PKIData contains one cmsSequence element and no
          reqSequence or otherMsgSequence elements. […]

Or something else?

Thanks,
Kent

> On Dec 24, 2021, at 10:22 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Russ,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 01:12:18PM -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
>> Ben:
>> 
>> Responding to just one comment in this message ...
>> 
>>>>>              TaggedContentInfo and it includes a bodyPartID element
>>>>>              and a contentInfo.  The contentInfo is a SignedData
>>>>>              encapsulating a PKIData with one reqSequence element
>>>>>              and no cmsSequence or otherMsgSequence elements. The
>>>>>              reqSequence is the TaggedRequest and it is the tcr
>>>>>              CHOICE. The tcr is the TaggedCertificationRequest and
>>>>>              it a bodyPartId and the certificateRequest elements.
>>>>>              [...]
>>>>> 
>>>>> ... since this reqSequence seems to refer to the PKIData inside the
>>>>> SignedData in the contentInfo in the cmsSequence.  Should we say
>>>>> anything about the presence/absence of reqSequence in the toplevel
>>>>> PKIData (since we do in the other two cases)?
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, the authors propose:
>>>> 
>>>> OLD: […]
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:   PKIData contains one cmsSequence element and no
>>>>           controlSequence, reqSequence, or otherMsgSequence
>>>>           elements. […]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Good?
>>> 
>>> I don't think we mention controlSequence anywhere else at present (though
>>> it is mentioned in the "NEW" text above).  I don't think the omission
>>> seemed noteworthy when I was doing my original review, so my primary
>>> consideration here is just that we give it consistent treatment everywhere
>>> (in terms of whether or not we mention it).
>> 
>> When looking at the text to address your comment, I could see not a role for controlSequence in this situation; however, I think there might possibly be a role in some of the other places.  For that reason, I thik it should be allowable in other places.  That is, the text should not exclude it.  If for consistency, you would rather not exclude controlSequence anywhere, I am fine with that too.
> 
> I have no strong preference here.  If you have looked at all the cases and
> think this one is "different enough" that controlSequence is not needed, I
> do not object to having it mentioned here.
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf