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

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>
Sent: 12 October 2022 14:07
To: tom petch; opsawg; [e-mail]; Thomas Fossati
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Last Call for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07

Hi Tom,

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

<tp>
Henk

Apologies (as ever) for being so late to the party.

I believe that the life cycle of an IANA-maintained module is different to that of any other and so having both in one I-D creates future problems for the IETF so I believe that s.5.3 along with supporting boiler plate, references, IANA Considerations, Security Considerations and a brief Introduction should be in a separate I-D.

I have made this comment against a number of I-D but my suggestions have not gained consensus.  I am usually somewhat late in making them and am looking to make such a comment prior to WG adoption of an I-D but have not yet managed that.  My experience suggests that this I-D will go forward much as-is, with editorial corrections such as to the references, in which case I will post something like the above to Last Call not in the expectation that it will gain consensus there for this I-D but rather that the next time an author proposes this approach, they may consider the path they are taking and choose another one.

I would not take this issue to an appeal in case the Document Shepherd is wondering what to put in section 3.

Tom Petch.

@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]> on behalf of Henk Birkholz <[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]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg