Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-06.txt

[Kenneth Vaughn <[e-mail]>]

I just noticed that an important sentence somehow got deleted from the definition of SnmpTLSFingerprint definition. The missing sentence that was in the original RFC 6353 occurs at the end of the second paragraph and reads as follows:

> The remaining octets are filled using the results of the hashing algorithm.

Should I produce a new 07 draft now or have you already sent to the IESG (in which case, I can presumably take care of it during final editing)?

Regards,
Ken Vaughn

Trevilon LLC
6606 FM 1488 RD #148-503
Magnolia, TX 77354
[phone] cell
[e-mail]
www.trevilon.com

> On Sep 26, 2022, at 7:55 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hey, Ken and WG.  I did not hear back on any interested shepherd, so I’ll take this one up and move this forward to IESG.  I will have the shepherd review and write-up ready this week.
>  
> Joe
>  
> From: OPSAWG <[e-mail]> on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 at 15:24
> To: Kenneth Vaughn <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-06.txt
> 
> Thanks, Ken.  Your new text addresses my concern on the use of MUST NOT.
>  
> I’m a bit disappointed we didn’t see other reviews from the directorates, but perhaps the summer doldrums are still at play.
>  
> What other comments do people have on the current draft?  If none, I’ll close the LC.  We do need a document shepherd.  If anyone is interested, please let me know.
>  
> Joe
>  
> From: OPSAWG <[e-mail]> on behalf of Kenneth Vaughn <[e-mail]>
> Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 at 4:57 PM
> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-06.txt
> 
> Based on the comments received during the Last Call process, I:
> - Updated the boilerplate text for the reference to BCP14
> - Clarified the 5th paragraph of the definition of SnmpTLSAddress, and 
> - and updated the revision notes of the MODULE-IDENTIFY macro to reflect the above tweak.
>  
> I believe this version resolves all comments made to date.
> 
> Regards,
> Ken Vaughn
>  
> Trevilon LLC
> 6606 FM 1488 RD #148-503
> Magnolia, TX 77354
> [phone] cell
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> www.trevilon.com <http://www.trevilon.com/>
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 9, 2022, at 3:53 PM, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>  
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group WG of the IETF.
> 
>        Title           : Updates to the TLS Transport Model for SNMP
>        Author          : Kenneth Vaughn
>  Filename        : draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-06.txt
>  Pages           : 31
>  Date            : 2022-09-09
> 
> Abstract:
>   This document updates the TLS Transport Model (TLSTM), as defined in
>   RFC 6353, to reflect changes necessary to support Transport Layer
>   Security Version 1.3 (TLS 1.3) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
>   Version 1.3 (DTLS 1.3), which are jointly known as "(D)TLS 1.3".
>   This document is compatible with (D)TLS 1.2 and is intended to be
>   compatible with future versions of SNMP and (D)TLS.
> 
>   This document updates the SNMP-TLS-TM-MIB as defined in RFC 6353.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/>
> 
> There is also an HTML version available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-06.html
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-06
> 
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>