A diff against -31 is at: https://tinyurl.com/vuls2ge and will grow to include my responses to Ben's 2019-12-20 comments later today.
tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes you have removed the second YANG module which addresses my comments > about the second YANG module but my other comments mostly remain. > Those about the YANG prefix are fixed. > RFC8040 needs to be in the I-D References > IANA Considerations mentions the removed module but lacks the two > required actions for the remaining module I understand now. I wonder if idnits could be taught to find such issues :-) Please see commit: https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/commit/75d7ef8a78b2c03cd2e558705861194357f1e643 > XXXX is used as a place holder for a document name which is not that of > this I-D and does not exist AFAICT Do you mean the self-reference should say "XXXX"? I have used "THIS DOCUMENT" in the past. > The YANG module must be plain text - [RFC8446] looks like HTML/XML I'm confused by this comment. I see: > Michael, my initial posts were a response to the Genart review and so > did not include your name, just Anima, Anima chairs, ibagdona, IETF; > you are in this one as [email protected] (but IETF mailers may have > a habit of thinking you will get an e-mail via one way and suppress > other ways with different e-mail addresses). Yes, I wasn't complaining about your actions, but more just lamenting: my impression is that the problem is that DMARC is getting in the way, since the DT acts as a remailer. However, btconnect.com has a p=none policy, so it shouldn't be a problem... however, maybe it fails the SPF tests themselves. {I was forced to switch spam processing systems in the spring, and it really has been a PITA to get it configured sensibly. Very few of them support IPv6, and a surprising number of them will not use TLS for final delivery. I specifically need to whitelist everything coming from the IETF SMTP machine, and I don't think I've accomplished that perfectly yet.} leaf proximity-registrar-cert { type binary; description "An X.509 v3 certificate structure as specified by RFC 5280, Section 4 encoded using the ASN.1 distinguished encoding rules (DER), as specified in ITU-T X.690. The first certificate in the Registrar TLS server certificate_list sequence (the end-entity TLS certificate, see [RFC8446]) presented by the Registrar to the Pledge. This MUST be populated in a Pledge's voucher request when a proximity assertion is requested."; } I'm not sure I see how you are seeing HTML here. If you are looking at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-31#section-3.4 then the links you are saying are because the HTMLizer sees the reference and HTMLizes it. > Security Considerations lacks the required boiler plate for a YANG > module I see. I have adapted the text from RFC8366, as we extend it, and the normal template does not apply. Fixed in commit: https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/commit/c138bbd24db038f0704770b545e74ba202a98e4e > Appendix A still has a typo secification -> specification. plege->Pledge.
-- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
