[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-02.txt
The most recent draft of the "Updates to the TLS Transport Model for SNMP" is now available at https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-02.html. This document is being developed by OPSAWG, but obviously relates to TLS so we would like to make sure that there is full awareness of this document within both groups before we start the process to finalize the document. This version reflects the discussions during IETF 113 and creates a TLSTM HashAlgorithm registry that will initially parallel the entries in the TLS (1.2) Hashing Algorithm Table. However, whereas TLS experts have expressed a desire to freeze the TLS Hashing Algorithm Table (to prevent new hashing algorithms from being used with TLS 1.2), the TLSTM HashAlgorithm registry will continue to add values as needed (so that the TLSTM fingerprint algorithm can still be used with minimal impact to existing code). We have also added the following two requirements to section 6 (IANA Considerations): - A new entry MUST be added to the TLSTM HashAlgorithm registry when new (D)TLS hashing algorithm are defined. - Any updates to the existing IANA TLS Hashing Algorithm Table MUST be consistent with the assignments in TLSTM HashAlgorithm registry (it is not expected that the TLS Hashing Algorithm Table will ever be updated, but the backwards compatibility of the standard is premised on this assumption so the constraint must be stated) Other changes include: Revised the title and abbreviation to be an update with no reference to TLS version number. Removed references to 1.3 except where needed Deleted paragraph regarding the terminology of "principle" as the term is not used. Removed double quotes around "obsolete" within SnmpTLSFingerprint DESCRIPTION clause. Revised text to use a consistent name for the proposed hash algorithm table (TLSTM HashAlgorithm Registry) Removed references not used in this document Removed appendix examples (i.e., the examples in RFC 6353 no longer need to change) The one change that was suggested and not implemented was a request to add additional hashing algorithms to the proposed table. I believe the proposal was to add the additional algorithms that are included in an INCOSE table (with newly assigned numbers). I searched for such a list but could not find one. Perhaps I misunderstood the source for this list? I am happy extend the list if someone can provide the correct reference. I believe this version is near final and I am notifying by both the OPSAWG and TLSWG to review to ensure that we have consensus. I welcome your inputs. Regards, Ken Vaughn Trevilon LLC 6606 FM 1488 RD #148-503 Magnolia, TX 77354 +1-936-647-1910 +1-571-331-5670 cell kvau...@trevilon.com www.trevilon.com > Begin forwarded message: > > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-02.txt > Date: April 6, 2022 at 6:38:45 PM CDT > To: "Kenneth Vaughn" > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-02.txt > has been successfully submitted by Kenneth Vaughn and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update > Revision: 02 > Title:Updates to the TLS Transport Model for SNMP > Document date:2022-04-06 > Group:opsawg > Pages:30 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-02.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/ > Html: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-02.html > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-02 > > Abstract: > This document updates the TLS Transport Model (TLSTM), as defined in > RFC 6353, to reflect changes necessary to support Transport Layer > Security Version 1.3 (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security > Version 1.3 (DTLS), which are jointly known as "(D)TLS". This > document is compatible with (D)TLS version 1.2 and is intended to be > compatible with future versions of SNMP and (D)TLS. > > This document updates the SNMP-TLS-TM-MIB as defined in RFC 6353. > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
[OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-02.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group WG of the IETF. Title : Updates to the TLS Transport Model for SNMP Author : Kenneth Vaughn Filename: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-02.txt Pages : 30 Date: 2022-04-06 Abstract: This document updates the TLS Transport Model (TLSTM), as defined in RFC 6353, to reflect changes necessary to support Transport Layer Security Version 1.3 (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.3 (DTLS), which are jointly known as "(D)TLS". This document is compatible with (D)TLS version 1.2 and is intended to be compatible with future versions of SNMP and (D)TLS. This document updates the SNMP-TLS-TM-MIB as defined in RFC 6353. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/ There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-02.html A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-02 Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
[OPSAWG] IETF DLMO draft side-meeting
Dear OPSA working group, Notes from the DMLMO regular side meeting are updated: https://notes.ietf.org/s/jEUXpW1XR ** IETF DMLMO side meeting (Apr/06) Attendees Eric Vyncke Marisol Palmero Meeting notes/updates: * Inventory: based on feedback from previous onsite meeting IETF #113, we are following with the AD & CCAMP and OPSA WG Chairs to decide which inventory YANG modules we should/could consume. From inventory perspective, DMLMO draft will need to align the “asset” concept to existing inventory YANG modules, considering that an asset refers to hardware, software, applications, or services; and it can be physical or virtual. * License: based on feedback from previous IETF #113 onsite meeting, we are working to cover common use cases for licence YANG module. Within the use cases, we are looking to include contraints that might be different from just time, i.e. licenses that can be limited by the number of cpus, vcpus, users, limit BW, and other possible consumption models. A proposal is available for discussion under: https://github.com/marisolpalmero/DMLMO/blob/fix-license/YangModules/ietf-lmo-licenses.yang Appreciate your comments and feedback, Thanks, Marisol Palmero ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: A YANG Model for Network and VPN Service Performance Monitoring
The WG LC is now closed. Tom has provided additional comments, and I still have some outstanding reviews, so I will mark this as pending a revised I-D. I noted no strong opposition to this work during the process. We are in need of a shepherd for this work. Who is interested? An IPR poll went out with authors responding that there is no known IPR. I have confirmed none has been submitted in Data Tracker. If there is any known IPR, it must be disclosed. Joe On 3/28/22 09:52, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: > In preparing for IETF 113, I let the close of this slip, but that turns > out to be a good thing. > > During her presentation, Bo called out the authors made a substantive > change in the latest revision to introduce a choice for vpn-pm-type. > Therefore, we are extending LC for another week to close on Monday, > April 4, 2022. > > Joe > > On 2/28/22 18:05, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: >> Ahead of IETF 113, we'd like to get working group consensus on >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm/. We >> are therefore conducting a two-week WG LC on this work. I have also >> requested reviews from Yang Docs, Ops, and Routing DIRs. >> >> Please share you comments and reviews on list. >> >> WG LC will end on March 14, 2022. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Joe >> > ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
