Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Last Call for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: tirumal reddy <[e-mail]>
Sent: 13 October 2022 07:57

Thanks Tom for the review. Yes, we will fix the references identified by Tom.

<tp>
-09 looks better.

I still see a mix of TLS-1.2 and TLS-1-2; I am not sure if there is a rationale for that.  I prefer the former but that mix of characters may confuse others.

I see a number of editorial issues - I do not know if you want to look at those now or leave them to Last Call.

One slightly technical one is that it is very rare to start a YANG prefix with ietf as the IANA webpages show - filename, MUST, prefix SHOULD NOT IMHO.  Thus acl has a prefix of acl so I would see the augment as acl-tls and not ietf-acl-tls; but mud is ietf-mud (unfortunately:-( so the augment is perhaps  better as ietf-mud-tls.  

Tom Petch

Cheers,
-Tiru

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 at 18:37, Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Tom,

would it be possible for you to augment your first comment with change
proposals, if possible?

@authors: it seems to me that the references issues Tom now provided in
specific detail could be resolved in this thread in a timely manner. Is
that correct?

Viele Grüße,

Henk

On 12.10.22 13:39, tom petch wrote:
> From: OPSAWG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Sent: 06 October 2022 13:26
>
> Dear authors and contributors,
>
> thank you for your hard work. As it seems that all existing issues have
> been resolve, we'll move the I-D to write-up in the datatracker.
>
> Also, thanks Thomas Fossati for stepping up as shepherd!
>
> <tp>
> My main comment on this remains the mix of two different YANG modules with different life cycles; I expect that l will comment again on the Last Call list to give this issue more exposure.
>
> Of lesser import, I cannot make sense of the references.
> I see [RFC5246] which normally means that a reference has been created.  Not here, so there would seem to have been some chicanery involved, that this I-D has not been produced by the usual IETF tools.
>
> I also see RFC5869, RFC6346, RFC8447 which seem absent from the I-D References.
>
> dtls13 is now an RFC.
>
> What is the difference between
> draft-ietf-tls-dtls13:
> and
>              "RFC DDDD: Datagram Transport Layer Security 1.3";
>   ?
> How do I find
>          "RFC CCCC: Common YANG Data Types for Cryptography";
>   or
>         "RFC IIII: Common YANG Data Types for Hash algorithms"; ?
>
> Does tls-1-2 mean the same as tls-1.2?  And is this the same as that which the Netconf WG refers to as tls12?
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
>
> Henk
>
>
> On 29.09.22 10:27, Henk Birkholz wrote:
>> Dear OPSAWG members,
>>
>> this email concludes the first WGLC call for
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07.html.
>>
>> A few comments where raised. Authors/editors, please go ahead and
>> address these as discussed on the list.
>>
>>
>> For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
>>
>> Henk
>>
>> On 14.09.22 16:07, Henk Birkholz wrote:
>>> Dear OPSAWG members,
>>>
>>> this email starts a two week period for a Working Group Last Call of
>>>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07.html
>>>
>>> ending on Thursday, September 28th.
>>>
>>> The authors believe the Internet-Draft is ready for a WGLC and the
>>> chairs agree. The draft has been discussed visibly at IETF 114 and
>>> review feedback has been incorporated in -07.
>>>
>>> Please send your comments to the list and your assessment of whether
>>> or not it is ready to proceed to publication before September 28th.
>>>
>>>
>>> For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
>>>
>>> Henk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSAWG mailing list
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg