IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [saag] advice on key table YANG module

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 26 October 2015 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96B271A1ADD for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WoheEOQ6ohUu for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29A421A1ADB for <saag@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25E29BE58; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:28:51 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QUF22O8NWJ1M; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:28:49 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.91] (unknown [86.46.30.221]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FFFABE54; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:28:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1445894929; bh=B5TBu8sOdAhpgJP4mFtvoPnOdAz4XF+c1rORgh/Fc5g=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=pyndjq754CFirTpx42gmsUf2jmqgppbQ/VYKSGXx9ozMn2Kg8jlzMCc4LJORqmKFY PSNVQRWqlaHnGf28AEH8kpQfjzdPrJJg58eIi+821PhuFqQayYeb7yS/q1b8SW4aGL lWE1glnPBSF6gqaY3LyzFAeIiTJRfWCpJwlqgTHc=
To: Ing-Wher Chen <ing-wher.chen@ericsson.com>, "Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com" <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
References: <BF6E0BD839774345977891C597F8B50C213688C7@eusaamb109.ericsson.se>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <562E9B0F.2050309@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:28:47 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BF6E0BD839774345977891C597F8B50C213688C7@eusaamb109.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/PI4qMbXVH2L_ngTnVeeiO5WOqio>
Cc: "aretana@cisco.com" <aretana@cisco.com>, "db3546@att.com" <db3546@att.com>, "akatlas@gmail.com" <akatlas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [saag] advice on key table YANG module
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/saag/>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:28:55 -0000

Hi all,

If folks have input to offer on this one I'm sure the authors
would appreciate that.

Thanks,
S.

On 15/10/15 18:03, Ing-Wher Chen wrote:
> Dear Security ADs,
> 
> Currently, RTGWG is trying to define a key management YANG module.
> There are two competing key management YANG modules, one organizes
> keys into key chains [1], and the other organizes keys as a key table
> [2] based on RFC 7210 [3].  Several implementations take the first
> approach, the key chain approach, and they were developed long before
> the publication of RFC 7210.
> 
> I was wondering if there is a need to continue both key-chain and
> key-table YANG modules in parallel?  More specifically, is there a
> need to continue to work on the key-table YANG module?
> 
> Thanks, Helen
> 
> [1]
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-rtg-yang-key-chain/>
> 
> [2]
> <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-rtgwg-key-table-yang/>
> 
> [3] <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7210>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email