Re: [OPSAWG] Augmenting ACLs in mud-tls
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 17 October 2022 13:24 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78FEAC152597; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 06:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WIXHormKYoWX; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 06:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDBB7C152590; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 06:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (unknown [142.169.78.8]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33D051F47D; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 13:24:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1F7F8A3939; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:24:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C9C1A3926; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:24:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <AM7PR07MB6248CDAD561C787FF280D7C5A0299@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM7PR07MB6248CDAD561C787FF280D7C5A0299@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Comments: In-reply-to tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> message dated "Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:59:23 -0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:24:42 -0400
Message-ID: <182561.1666013082@dyas>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/Nn8TdgQCtPrWq7WcWgvB1hZvPt8>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Augmenting ACLs in mud-tls
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 13:24:53 -0000
tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote: > draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls augments RFC8519 but while the RFC > structures its matches as a series of choices, the augmentation > does not. Should it? What in practice does this mean for the YANG? > The I-D has passed WGLC but has been delayed by me making > editorial comments. AFAICT the I-D has not had a YANG Doctor > review. Seems that this should have happened. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
- [OPSAWG] Augmenting ACLs in mud-tls tom petch
- Re: [OPSAWG] Augmenting ACLs in mud-tls Michael Richardson
- Re: [OPSAWG] Augmenting ACLs in mud-tls tom petch