Re: [netmod] [Trustees] draft-moriarty-yangsecuritytext vs errata

[[e-mail]]

Hi all, 

FWIW, the proposed updates are now available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-netmod-rfc8407bis/ 

Cheers,
Med & Qin

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> Envoyé : mardi 11 avril 2023 08:39
> À : 'Jürgen Schönwälder' <[e-mail]>;
> 'Rob Wilton (rwilton)' <rwilton=[e-mail]>;
> '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
> Cc : 'Kathleen Moriarty' <[e-mail]>;
> 'Stephan Wenger' <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]'
> <[e-mail]>; 'Deen, Glenn' <[e-mail]>; 'The
> IESG' <[e-mail]>
> Objet : RE: [netmod] [Trustees] draft-moriarty-yangsecuritytext vs
> errata
> 
> Hi Jürgen, all,
> 
> I started exercising the proposed approach below. A diff to track
> candidate changes can be seen at: https://author-
> tools.ietf.org/diff?doc_1=rfc8407&url_2=https://boucadair.github.i
> o/rfc8407bis/draft-boucadair-netmod-rfc8407bis.txt/. Please note
> that this text is not submitted and not approved yet by Andy.
> 
> When diving into the changes, I found that the security
> considerations has a MUST that is broken since we have RFC8791.
> That should be fixed as well.
> 
> Major updates are as follows:
> 
>    *  Added statements that the security template is not required
> for
>       modules that follow [RFC8791].
>    *  Added guidelines for IANA-maintained modules.
>    *  Added a note that RFC8792-folding of YANG modules can be
> used if
>       and only if native YANG features (e.g., break line, "+") are
> not sufficient.
> 
> Minor changes:
> 
>    *  Implemented errata 5693, 5800, 6899, and 7416.
>    *  Updated the terminology with IANA-maintained/IETF modules.
>    *  Added code markers for the security template.
>    *  Updated the YANG security considerations template to reflect
> the
>       latest version maintained in the Wiki.
>    *  Added a statement that the RFCs that are listed in the
> security
>       template are to be listed as normative references in
> documents
>       that use the template.
>    *  Added a note that folding of the examples should be done as
> per
>       [RFC8792] conventions.
>    *  Added tool validation checks to ensure that YANG modules fit
> into
>       the line limits of an I-D.
>    *  Added tool validation checks of JSON encoded examples.
>    *  Updated many examples to be aligned with the consistent
>       indentation recommendation.
>    *  Updated the IANA considerations to encourage registration
> requests
>       to indicate whether a module is maintained by IANA or not.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> > Envoyé : jeudi 6 avril 2023 06:43
> > À : 'Jürgen Schönwälder' <[e-mail]>
> > Cc : Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=[e-mail]>;
> > Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>; Stephan
> Wenger
> > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Deen,
> Glenn
> > <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]> Objet : RE:
> > [netmod] [Trustees] draft-moriarty-yangsecuritytext vs errata
> >
> > Hi Jürgen,
> >
> > I think we both agree with the proposal to immediately proceed
> with an
> > erratum and handle the bis separately.
> >
> > I'm more optimist here if we agree on the scope I proposed below
> > (existing errata, no changes to the existing guidelines, add
> > guidelines for writing IANA-maintained modules). It is worth a
> try.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jürgen Schönwälder
> > <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: mercredi 5 avril 2023 19:36
> > > To: BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> > <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=[e-mail]>;
> > > Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>; Stephan
> > Wenger
> > > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Deen,
> > Glenn
> > > <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] [Trustees] draft-moriarty-
> yangsecuritytext vs
> > > errata
> > >
> > > I am a pessimist when it comes to IETF time plans and the
> ability to
> > > limit discussions to certain issues once a document goes
> through a
> > > working group process. I also recall surprises during the
> final
> > > stages of the IESG review, some wonderful issues came up on
> things
> > > we did
> > not
> > > intent to touch in the update. Well, as poinful as it was, the
> > > feedback made things better at the end, but the notion of
> > "reasonable
> > > timeframe" in the IETF likely is anything between 6 months and
> N
> > > years. Compared to that, an errata can be done in April and
> this
> > > buys us time to do whatever update we agree on in an IETF
> > > "reasonable timeframe".
> > >
> > > /js
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 01:10:59PM +0000,
> > [e-mail]
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi Rob, all,
> > > >
> > > > I also think an errata is pragmatic here.
> > > >
> > > > On the bis, I think that this can be handled separately. If
> we
> > > scope the bis to be ** limited to very few items ** to cover
> areas
> > > where we don’t have guidelines (e.g., add “Guidelines for
> IANA-
> > > Maintained Modules”), and in addition to the few errata out
> there, a
> > > bis can be delivered in a reasonable timeframe. A candidate
> text for
> > > the Guidelines for IANA-Maintained Modules can be seen at:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-netmod-iana-
> > > registries/.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Med
> > > >