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

On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 at 16:55, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> From: tirumal reddy <kondtir@gmail.com>
> 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.
>

Good point, fixed in my copy
https://github.com/tireddy2/mud-tls/blob/master/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-10.txt
.

>
> 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.
>

Please feel free to raise the editorial issues, we will fix them.

>
> 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.

We followed the format similar to ietf-access-control-list (YANG data model
of network ACL) and ietf-mud to be consistent.

Cheers,
-Tiru

>
>
> Tom Petch
>
> Cheers,
> -Tiru
>
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 at 18:37, Henk Birkholz <
> henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de<mailto:henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>>
> 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 <opsawg-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org>>
> on behalf of Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de<mailto:
> henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>>
> > 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
> >> OPSAWG@ietf.org<mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org>
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OPSAWG mailing list
> > OPSAWG@ietf.org<mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>