If I am reading you correctly Rob, you are expecting a revision of the
relevant RFC? If that is so, we can probably live with an erratum.
The problem otherwise is that folks may not see the erratum, and thus
not know what the rules are. I am willing to be flexible on the
question of whether this is a legitimate erratum, as that is not the
trust's call. (I think it is a stretch, but so it goes.)
Yours,
Joel
On 4/4/2023 10:56 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
Hi Kathleen,
Thanks. It is unclear to me in your reply as to what the "this" refers to in "this
was viewed as cleaner". I.e., does it mean an errata, or AD sponsoring your draft?
For, me, if we can get away with doing an errata, i.e., it is sufficient to
meet the trusts requirements, then I believe that is a better path for the
following reasons:
(1) Quicker and less work, and I understand that you are under time pressure
here.
(2) We don't end up with the security template in another RFC.
(3) I'm proposing that the OPS area discussions and refinements to the current template text to
make it clear about what is expected to be documented. E.g., my reading of the template is that
implies that many/most YANG paths or subtrees should be documented (and this is seemingly the
practice that many WGs have been following), but the text in RFC 8407 describing how the template
should be used is somewhat is different since it refers to documents paths that are
"especially disruptive if abused" or "especially sensitive information or that raise
significant privacy concerns". I.e., the aim is to document the exception paths, not giving
an overview of all paths/subtrees in the module. Hence, I think that this would end up somewhat
changing the template text, and having one less copy of it seems easier.
Thanks,
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com>
Sent: 03 April 2023 21:14
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>
Cc: Deen, Glenn <glenn_d...@comcast.com>; trust...@ietf.org;
netmod@ietf.org; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: draft-moriarty-yangsecuritytext vs errata
Hello Rob!
Thank you for your offer of AD sponsorship. We also reviewed the idea of using
errata and I think this was viewed as cleaner in that it would be readily
apparent that the template text could be used with the need for explanation. I
think (and correct if I left anything out), either works to achieve the
objective
for this since we’re working directly with the IEEE.
Best regards,
Kathleen
Sent from my mobile device
On Apr 3, 2023, at 1:30 PM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
I'm getting an out-of-office bounce from Glenn, so adding trust...@ietf.org
in the hope that either Kathleen or one of the other trustees is give an answer
more quickly.
Thanks,
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Sent: 03 April 2023 18:19
To: kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com; Deen, Glenn
<glenn_d...@comcast.com>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
Subject: draft-moriarty-yangsecuritytext vs errata
Hi Glenn, Kathleen,
In addition to discussing draft-moriarty-yangsecuritytext in the NETMOD WG
session on Friday (where the conclusion was to go the AD sponsored path), I
also raised this issue with the IESG/IAB at the end of the IETF week, and
someone had the suggestion of filling an errata against the YANG Author
Guidelines (RFC 8407) to add the missing <BEGIN TEMPLATE TEXT> and
<END
TEMPLATE TEXT> markers to section 3.7.1 of RFC 8407.
I know that you offered a RFC 8407-bis path, but did you also consider
whether
adding these markers as errata (which I would regard as being as in-scope
and
appropriate and could be marked as 'verified')? If this approach worked
from
your side, and if there are no objections from the authors or NETMOD, then
I
was wondering if that could be a more expedient path forward.
Please let me know if errata would be sufficient from a trust perspective,
otherwise, I'll go the AD sponsored route on Kathleen's draft.
Regards,
Rob
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
