Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benoit,

The extension we are using, “default-deny-all”, is available in either version of the model. The detriment of referencing the new version is that publication would delay until 6536BIS is published.

Thanks,
Acee

From: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 11:45 AM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Routing WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: rtgwg-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain

Hi Acee,

Yes, I've been confused (more than once) by ietf-key-chain and ietf-key-store. Sorry.

The correct graph is here.
http://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-key-chain&orgs[]=ietf&recurse=0&rfcs=1
And thanks to Joe Clarke for improving the tool in real-time.

The graph shows a dependency on the ietf-netconf-acm YANG module.
Checking the draft...


   <CODE BEGINS> file "[e-mail]"<mailto:[e-mail]>
   module ietf-key-chain {
       namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-key-chain";
       // replace with IANA namespace when assigned
       prefix "key-chain";
      import ietf-yang-types {
           prefix "yang";
       }

       import ietf-netconf-acm {
           prefix "nacm";

The normative reference shows:

   [NETCONF-ACM]
              Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
              Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6536>, March
              2012

We have in fact two ietf-netconf-acm YANG modules
    One from RFC 6536
    One from [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-00.txt<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis>

Which one do you depend on? Do you want to use import by revision, or you want to use the future draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-00.txt<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis>?

Regards, Benoit
Hi Benoit,

This is the IETF key-chain model which is comprised of a lists of symmetric keys that are used for applications such as routing protocol authentication and encryption. The IETF keystore model is comprised of lists of asymmetric keys and certificates that are used for applications such as NETCONF authentication and encryption. The two models are in no way dependent on one another.

Thanks,
Acee

From: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:57 AM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Routing WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: rtgwg-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain

On 2/7/2017 12:53 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
I support as a co-author. This IETF YANG model is currently referenced by a number or the other protocol models for specification of authentication keys including OSPF, IS-IS, RIP, and VRRP.
And note that there are dependencies on some NETCONF WG documents.
http://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-keychain&orgs[]=ietf&recurse=1&rfcs=1

Basically, this "Client/Server Configuration Model" package, i.e. those drafts:
    draft-ietf-netconf-keystore-00 Keystore Model
    draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-client-server-00 SSH Client and Server Models
    draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-00 TLS Client and Server Models
    draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-00 NETCONF Client and Server Models
    draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server-00 RESTCONF Client and Server Models

For this package, see http://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-tls-client&modules[]=ietf-tls-server&modules[]=ietf-ssh-client&modules[]=ietf-ssh-server&modules[]=ietf-restconf-client&modules[]=ietf-restconf-server&modules[]=ietf-key-store&modules[]=ietf-netconf-client&modules[]=ietf-netconf-server&orgs[]=ietf&recurse=&rfcs=1

[cid:[e-mail]]

Copying the NETCONF chairs, to get the latest status, and to make sure this NETCONF package progresses at the same pace.

Regards, Benoit

Thanks,
Acee
P.S. Not aware of any IPR in case you want to ask again ;^)

From: Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:35 PM
To: Routing WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: rtgwg-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain
Resent-From: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Resent-To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Jeffrey Zhang <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Helen Chen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Resent-Date: Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:35 PM

Dear RTGWG,

There have been significant changes to the draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain draft.
We would like the wg to review the updated draft and hence start another, 1 week long WGLC.

Please indicate support/ no-support by February 13, 2017.

Thanks,
Jeff & Chris

From: Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, September 9, 2016 at 16:11
To: RTGWG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: rtgwg-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Last Call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain

Dear RTGWG,

The authors have requested the RTGWG to last call draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain


There was consensus that document is ready for the last call during the last IETF meeting and the authors have addressed all the comments from Directorate QA review.
Please indicate support or no-support by September 23rd, 2016.


IPR:
If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to this email.
of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list.
The document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and each
individual that has contributed to the document.


Thanks,
Jeff & Chris



_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg