Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-keystore-02

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:37:50PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
> 
> > I looked a bit more and you define
> >
> >  identity key-algorithm {
> >    description
> >      "Base identity from which all key-algorithms are derived.";
> >  }
> >
> > plus a bunch of concrete algorithms. draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain-24
> > defines
> >
> >    identity crypto-algorithm {
> >       description
> >         "Base identity of cryptographic algorithm options.";
> >     }
> >
> > and then a bunch of concrete algorithms (hashes and symmetric ones).
> > They also do not expect IANA to maintain things. I would love if
> > security area people would help us with getting this right, well
> > perhaps they jump in during secdir review.
> 
> 
> FWIW, the two sets of algorithm identities are disjoint.  The ones in
> the keystore draft are all public-key algorithms.  As for the key-chain
> draft, all but one of the identities are hmac algorithms, with the last
> one being for a key derivation function.
> 
> It would be best to address this in the WG, for visibility.  I think
> that it's possible to request an early secdir review, or maybe we can 
> ask about just this concern.  This is a chair-action. 
>

I all for secdir review for this document. That said, perhaps it is OK
to have the identities as they are and to define a proper IANA
registry later. The price might be that some identities are defined
twice but that would likely not be a significant implementation cost.
Its a trade off between (i) moving fast and maybe requiring to adapt
later or (ii) trying to work everything out while doing the first
version and hence being slow.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>