Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

2023-03-02 Thread Eric Vyncke (evyncke) 
Thank you, Ken, for considering my review. I hope that it helps to improve (the 
already good) quality of the I-D

Regards

-éric

From: Kenneth Vaughn 
Date: Wednesday, 1 March 2023 at 20:15
To: Eric Vyncke 
Cc: The IESG , "draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-upd...@ietf.org" 
, "opsawg@ietf.org" , 
"opsawg-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on 
draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

Thank you for your input, I hope to have a new version posted today with the 
change mentioned below

Regards,
Ken Vaughn

Trevilon LLC
1060 S Hwy 107
Del Rio, TN 37727
+1-571-331-5670 cell
kvau...@trevilon.com<mailto:kvau...@trevilon.com>
www.trevilon.com<http://www.trevilon.com>


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12
### MIB Doctor review

Like Lars, I wonder whether there was a MIB doctor review.
[Joe] There was no formal MIB Doctor review, but we did receive comments from 
Jürgen and Randy, who are members of MIB Doctors (I believe), during the 
progress of this draft.
it's always a good idea to have someone look carefully at
the changes from a MIB Doctor perspective.  I lost count of the times
students came to me complaining that their FORTRAN programs no longer
compiled, and defended their bafflement with "but I only changed one
line."
In addition to the reviewers mentioned above, I have used 
Simpleweb.org<http://Simpleweb.org> to ensure that the MIB continues to compile.


### Section 3.1

This text is repeated, is it on purpose ?
```
The reason 0-RTT is disallowed is that there are no "safe" messages that if
replayed will be guaranteed to cause no harm at a server side: all incoming
notification or command responses are meant to be acted upon only once. See
Security considerations section for further details ```
I have changed the second occurrence of this statement to read simply as 
follows to complete the thought of the preceding sentence:
   Within SNMP, there are no messages that are "safe to use" with this mode.



___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

2023-03-01 Thread Kenneth Vaughn 
Thank you for your input, I hope to have a new version posted today with the 
change mentioned below

Regards,
Ken Vaughn

Trevilon LLC
1060 S Hwy 107
Del Rio, TN 37727
+1-571-331-5670 cell
kvau...@trevilon.com
www.trevilon.com

> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12
> ### MIB Doctor review
> 
> Like Lars, I wonder whether there was a MIB doctor review.
>> [Joe] There was no formal MIB Doctor review, but we did receive comments 
>> from Jürgen and Randy, who are members of MIB Doctors (I believe), during 
>> the progress of this draft.
> it's always a good idea to have someone look carefully at
> the changes from a MIB Doctor perspective.  I lost count of the times
> students came to me complaining that their FORTRAN programs no longer
> compiled, and defended their bafflement with "but I only changed one
> line."
In addition to the reviewers mentioned above, I have used Simpleweb.org to 
ensure that the MIB continues to compile. 

> ### Section 3.1
> 
> This text is repeated, is it on purpose ?
> ```
> The reason 0-RTT is disallowed is that there are no "safe" messages that if
> replayed will be guaranteed to cause no harm at a server side: all incoming
> notification or command responses are meant to be acted upon only once. See
> Security considerations section for further details ```
I have changed the second occurrence of this statement to read simply as 
follows to complete the thought of the preceding sentence:
   Within SNMP, there are no messages that are "safe to use" with this mode.


___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

2023-02-28 Thread Randy Presuhn 

Hi -

On 2023-02-28 6:39 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:

Thanks for the review, Eric (and Lars).

There was no formal MIB Doctor review, but we did receive comments from 
Jürgen and Randy, who are members of MIB Doctors (I believe), during the 
progress of this draft.  Those comments were helpful in deciding on the 
language changes within the MIB object descriptions, as well as fixing 
some syntax errors.


https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm_list=opsawg_from=J%C3%BCrgen%20Sch%C3%B6nw%C3%A4lder
 


https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm_list=opsawg_from=Randy%20Presuhn 


I know they weren’t reviewing in the formal MIB Doctors sense.  If the 
IESG feels a more formal MIB Doctor review is needed, we can ask for it.


My comments were only with regard to linguistic issues in a single
object description.  I don't remember reviewing this document in
its entirety, but I could be mistaken.

However, if Jürgen's assessment of the amount of change from the RFC
is correct, then a full-on MIB Doctor review is likely not warranted.
However, it's always a good idea to have someone look carefully at
the changes from a MIB Doctor perspective.  I lost count of the times
students came to me complaining that their FORTRAN programs no longer
compiled, and defended their bafflement with "but I only changed one
line."

Randy

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

2023-02-28 Thread Jürgen Schönwälder 
It may help to point out that the MIB module is mostly unchanged,
nothing in the design or structure of the MIB module did change
as far as I know.

/js

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 02:39:47PM +, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
> Thanks for the review, Eric (and Lars).
> 
> There was no formal MIB Doctor review, but we did receive comments from 
> Jürgen and Randy, who are members of MIB Doctors (I believe), during the 
> progress of this draft.  Those comments were helpful in deciding on the 
> language changes within the MIB object descriptions, as well as fixing some 
> syntax errors.
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm_list=opsawg_from=J%C3%BCrgen%20Sch%C3%B6nw%C3%A4lder
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm_list=opsawg_from=Randy%20Presuhn
> 
> I know they weren’t reviewing in the formal MIB Doctors sense.  If the IESG 
> feels a more formal MIB Doctor review is needed, we can ask for it.
> 
> Joe
> 
> From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker 
> Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 08:32
> To: The IESG 
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-upd...@ietf.org 
> , opsawg-cha...@ietf.org 
> , opsawg@ietf.org , Joe Clarke 
> (jclarke) , Joe Clarke (jclarke) 
> Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: 
> (with COMMENT)
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to 
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/
> 
> 
> 
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
> 
> 
> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12
> CC @evyncke
> 
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
> 
> Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points.
> 
> Special thanks to Joe Clarke for the shepherd's detailed write-up including 
> the
> WG consensus **and** the justification of the intended status.
> 
> I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> ## COMMENTS
> 
> ### MIB Doctor review
> 
> Like Lars, I wonder whether there was a MIB doctor review.
> 
> ### Section 3.1
> 
> This text is repeated, is it on purpose ?
> ```
> The reason 0-RTT is disallowed is that there are no "safe" messages that if
> replayed will be guaranteed to cause no harm at a server side: all incoming
> notification or command responses are meant to be acted upon only once. See
> Security considerations section for further details ```
> 
> ## Notes
> 
> This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
> [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
> individual GitHub issues.
> 
> [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
> 
> 

> ___
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg


-- 
Jürgen Schönwälder  Constructor University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

2023-02-28 Thread Joe Clarke (jclarke) 
Thanks for the review, Eric (and Lars).

There was no formal MIB Doctor review, but we did receive comments from Jürgen 
and Randy, who are members of MIB Doctors (I believe), during the progress of 
this draft.  Those comments were helpful in deciding on the language changes 
within the MIB object descriptions, as well as fixing some syntax errors.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm_list=opsawg_from=J%C3%BCrgen%20Sch%C3%B6nw%C3%A4lder

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm_list=opsawg_from=Randy%20Presuhn

I know they weren’t reviewing in the formal MIB Doctors sense.  If the IESG 
feels a more formal MIB Doctor review is needed, we can ask for it.

Joe

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker 
Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 08:32
To: The IESG 
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-upd...@ietf.org 
, opsawg-cha...@ietf.org 
, opsawg@ietf.org , Joe Clarke 
(jclarke) , Joe Clarke (jclarke) 
Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with 
COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to 
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/



--
COMMENT:
--


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points.

Special thanks to Joe Clarke for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the
WG consensus **and** the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### MIB Doctor review

Like Lars, I wonder whether there was a MIB doctor review.

### Section 3.1

This text is repeated, is it on purpose ?
```
The reason 0-RTT is disallowed is that there are no "safe" messages that if
replayed will be guaranteed to cause no harm at a server side: all incoming
notification or command responses are meant to be acted upon only once. See
Security considerations section for further details ```

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments


___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

[OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

2023-02-28 Thread Éric Vyncke via Datatracker 
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to 
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/



--
COMMENT:
--


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points.

Special thanks to Joe Clarke for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the
WG consensus **and** the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### MIB Doctor review

Like Lars, I wonder whether there was a MIB doctor review.

### Section 3.1

This text is repeated, is it on purpose ?
```
The reason 0-RTT is disallowed is that there are no "safe" messages that if
replayed will be guaranteed to cause no harm at a server side: all incoming
notification or command responses are meant to be acted upon only once. See
Security considerations section for further details ```

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments



___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg