I have pushed -33 with changes as below. tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31/12/2019 22:01, Michael Richardson wrote: >> >> tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Security Considerations, the YANG Guidelines RFC says that you must mention >> > TLS, HTTPS, etc and give pro forma text for doing so. As long as you still >> > have a YANG module, as you do in s.3.4, I would expect those guidelines to >> > apply and so to see something like the pro forma text >> >> Please see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8366.html#section-7.4 >> >> TLS is already specified and discussed at length in the document. >> If you want me to copy the second paragraph from there in, I can do that, but >> it seems like needless text. You can't implement BRSKI without reading >> RFC8366.
> Looking at -32:
> Security; OK, leave it be.
> IANA yes, that is (almost) what I wanted - I suggest that the title of 8.2
> should be 'YANG Module Names Registry.
fixed, sorry, stupid copy and paste error.
> References still trouble me.
> The YANG module has
> reference "RFC xxxx Voucher Profile for Bootstrapping Protocols"
> I cannot find an I-D of that name - it is not the name of this I-D; do you
> mean "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure" which is the current
> title of this I-D and which I would I think would not appear to be the
same
> reference to a layman?
I have fixed it to say:
reference
"RFC XXXX: Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure";
But, as this is actually the voucher-request, should it instead say something
about that?
I also saw:
reference "RFC 8366: Voucher Profile for Bootstrapping Protocols";
I have fixed it to:
reference "RFC 8366: Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols";
> Also on References, in -31 you had X.690 as a Normative Reference which I
> thought spot on - now you have removed the reference which I think wrong.
> YANG 'leaf proximity-registrar-cert' mentions X.690 so I think that
> a) you need a YANG reference clause for the leaf
Dang. I removed that because I couldn't find a reference to it, because in
the YANG, the reference is not in the normal fashion. I've restored the
reference and fixed the YANG description
> b) you need a XML/HTML reference in the body of the I-D so as to avoid an
> unused ref error - 'The YANG module makes reference to [X.690] ' {or
> [ITU.X690.1994] } is the way most authors address this
I've put a reference into an appendix that the RFC editor should remove,
which is what I started doing earlier this week, then discovered the section
appeared empty.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
