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

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Thank you. Are we adding an errata to the document as well and approving so that it is set now and then improved with the bis publication?

Best regards,
Kathleen 

Sent from my mobile device

> On Jun 2, 2023, at 3:26 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> 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
>>>>>