From: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkh...@sit.fraunhofer.de> Sent: 12 October 2022 14:07 To: tom petch; opsawg; draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-...@ietf.org; Thomas Fossati Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] π 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 GrΓΌΓe, Henk On 12.10.22 13:39, tom petch wrote: > From: OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Henk Birkholz > <henk.birkh...@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 >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
