Re: [netconf] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-29: (with COMMENT)

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Wed, 31 January 2024 20:58 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.600.7\))
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
In-Reply-To: <170666063080.28855.16608655355568650650@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 20:58:38 +0000
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types@ietf.org, "netconf-chairs@ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <0100018d61510c81-676cf710-54cf-4685-8755-d9292fe8c678-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <170666063080.28855.16608655355568650650@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/yN0BYLJ5l5ldJbVPp6zqciWJI6A>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-29: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hi Warren,

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

Kent


> On Jan 30, 2024, at 7:23 PM, Warren Kumari via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-29: 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-crypto-types/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I couldn't really decide between No Objection and Discuss. I ended up deciding
> on No Obj.

:laugh:


> I'm **assuming** that the "hidden" is conceptually similar to a write-only
> variable (or like some device vendors who elide the password/keys/similar in
> their equivalent of 'show config'), but it's really really unclear -- this
> section could do with some more words to explain this…

I made this update per another review’s comment, does it address your concern?
If not, can you please point to which section could do with some more words?


OLD
-            "A hidden key.  How such keys are created is outside
-             the scope of this module.";

NEW
+            "A hidden key.  It is of type 'empty' as its value is
+             inaccessible via management interfaces.  Though hidden
+             to users, such keys are not hidden to the server and
+             may be referenced by configuration to indicate which
+             key a server should use for a cryptographic operation.
+             How such keys are created is outside the scope of this
+             module.";




Thanks again!
Kent

[netconf] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… Warren Kumari via Datatracker
Re: [netconf] Warren Kumari's No Objection on dra… Kent Watsen