Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 12:14:39PM +0000, Joe Clarke (jclarke): > Hello, authors. Ahead of IETF 115, we’d like to get an update on the status > of this work. Since adoption, on-list traffic has been silent (though there > has been discussion on the SSH work). > > I believe there are still some outstanding edits to make on this work based > on adoption feedback, and we’d like to continue to progress this. When do > you think you’ll have a -01 ready for review?
Hey Joe, You had raised 3 questions/requests. Of these, we have addressed two in unpublished text, but the third we find ourselves unsure about what you want. You'd asked for an operators considsrations sections. More specifically, fallback to legacy T+ and migration to certificates. We feel that some, perhaps most, of this is covered in various sections of the current document, particularly the security considerations section. So, we want to ask if the existing text is sufficient (excluding the omission of migration to certificates) or if you would like duplication of these detail in an operations consideration section? We also considered splitting the Security considerations section, trying to separate ops from implementation. There also might be opportunity to point to existing documents. Please guide us. Alan DeKok raised two TLS-related questions. No one else commented about these, so we are asking some other TLS experts to comment. Douglas is drafting a more complete description of the alternative SSH pubkey syntax & process, to which WG response was more positive than the original proposal. We have not received any comments besides what was on the WG maillist. We have solicited comment from a few vendors about both drafts, which has been positive and supports the approach of limiting change, compared to re-engineering the protocol for a more modern approach. -heas _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
