Hi Kent, I did follow up on this. The reason for “key-chain” in the model name is that “keychain” is not a well-known compound word. Additionally, Cisco OSs, use “key chain” and Ericsson uses “key-chain”. I’d be interested in other thoughts on this.
I did get some negative feedback with respect to adding “routing-“ to the model name since key chains are used for other non-routing applications as well. What are your thoughts on this given that you now see the ubiquitous usage of key chains across vendors? Thanks, Acee On 4/18/16, 12:54 PM, "Kent Watsen" <[email protected]> wrote: > >I discussed this naming issue with Acee (CC-ed) in the hallway at BA. He >said that he used "key-chain" because that is what Cisco/Redback CLI >uses. We then searched on "juniper key-chain" and found that JUNOS uses >"keychain". I'm not sure if a more exhaustive search has been made. > >I think the netconf draft should stick with "keychain" for now. I'd like >to see some discussion in the routing area if they might be better off >using "keychain"... > >Kent > > > > > > >On 4/8/16, 12:12 PM, "t.petch" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Kent Watsen" <[email protected]> >>To: "Martin Bjorklund" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> >>Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 4:15 AM >> >>> >>> Hi Martin, >>> >>> Thank you for your review. Below are my responses: >>> >> >><snip> >> >>> >>> >o Section 5 >>> > >>> > ietf-system-keychain vs. ietf-routing-key-chain >>> > >>> > Is it "keychain" or "key-chain"? >>> >>> I've never seen "key-chain" before. Many OSs (e.g., mac, linux, >>openbsd, freebsd) have a utility called "keychain". >>> >> >>Kent >> >>The IETF is riddled with them e.g. >> >>" The key-chain YANG model groups several keys into a single key >>chain." >> >>in draft-chen-rtgwg-key-table-yang along with 16 other YANG I-Ds that I >>have seen lately, containing snippets such as >> >> container key-chains { >> list key-chain-list { >> key "name"; >> description >> "List of key-chains."; >> uses key-chain; >> >>I think that there should be a consistent spelling across the IETF. >> >>Tom Petch >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >o General remark. >>> > >>> > Unless it is too much of a burden, I think it would make sense to >>> > move the generic tls and ssh grouping models (and keychain) into a >>> > separate draft. It might also be useful with corresponding >>> > groupings for ssh/tls clients (which you almost already have). >>> >>> This will be discussed in tomorrow's meeting >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Kent >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Netconf mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf >> _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
