IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] [Anima] revising RFC8366 -- Re: BRSKI-AE enum issue -> empty, but what's he encoding ?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 30 June 2021 01:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0DB3A1147; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.877
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NO_DNS_FOR_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZLz0fhXTMvcn; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1113B3A10E7; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A6C389DC; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 21:25:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5GFoYZ_2JBNt; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 21:25:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77F15389DA; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 21:25:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B9222B; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 21:23:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, "Fries, Steffen" <steffen.fries@siemens.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <0100017a5a6ac423-889b9d5b-51cb-4f86-8977-c5bac1e021ec-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <20210625190512.GB30200@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <5025.1624653668@localhost> <DM4PR11MB5438EE27158CDEAF63F89C97B5039@DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <27560.1625013411@localhost> <0100017a5a6ac423-889b9d5b-51cb-4f86-8977-c5bac1e021ec-000000@email.amazonses.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 21:23:04 -0400
Message-ID: <7533.1625016184@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/y4SOJXbzY24_5Kuska1I8KhiduE>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [Anima] revising RFC8366 -- Re: BRSKI-AE enum issue -> empty, but what's he encoding ?
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 01:23:35 -0000

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote:
    >> Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
    >>> An RFC8366bis is the right option.  If the changes are minor then I may
    >>> be able to ease the passage through the IESG, but I can't do much to
    >>> affect the elapsed time.

    > If considering a bis, can we consider changing the "pinned-domain-cert”
    > node from a X.509v3 cert to a “choice” between that and a chain of
    > certs?

Yeah, I think it's a good idea.
Could we also have the choice be a RPK?

    > Or, better, using ietf-crypto-types:

:-)

    > Check this:

    > https://yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis/?modtags=ietf-voucher%402017-10-25.yang&orgtags=&recursion=0&show_rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=dependents
    > <https://yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis/?modtags=ietf-voucher@2017-10-25.yang&orgtags=&recursion=0&show_rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=dependents>

Yeah, I knew about that, but others might not.
I was basically trying to distill it down into a few words.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email