On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 4:09 AM tom petch <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do not know what we are talking about. Perhaps I will know if and when > I see minutes from the last IETF meeting. Meanwhile > ________________________________________ > From: netmod <[email protected]> on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder > <[email protected]> > Sent: 05 April 2023 18:36 > > I am a pessimist when it comes to IETF time plans and the ability to > limit discussions to certain issues once a document goes through a > working group process. I also recall surprises during the final stages > of the IESG review, some wonderful issues came up on things we did not > intent to touch in the update. Well, as poinful as it was, the > feedback made things better at the end, but the notion of "reasonable > timeframe" in the IETF likely is anything between 6 months and N > years. Compared to that, an errata can be done in April and this buys > us time to do whatever update we agree on in an IETF "reasonable > timeframe". > > <tp> > > ..... guessing, I see from TLP > “This RFC contains text intended for use as a template as designated below > by the markers <BEGIN TEMPLATE TEXT> and <END TEMPLATE TEXT> or other clear > designation. Such Template Text is subject to the provisions of Section > 9(b) of the Trust Legal Provisions.” > > In 8407, I see 'Appendix B YANG module template' and CODE BEGINS and CODE > ENDS so not being a lawyer, I would have thought that 8407 fits the bill > and no change is needed. > > On the other hand, 8407 has the BSD licence wrong which needs updating > (MISSION CREEP). I share Juergen's view that it take a long time to > produce an RFC. On the third hand, many updates to RFC start as Errata so > I would raise an erratum, held for update, and set to work on the update > with a target date of IETF118 (and fix the BSD licence en passant). > > But when I find out what the problem is I might change my mind. > There was no discussion or awareness (by anyone) during the development and publication of RFC 8407 regarding BEGIN/END TEMPLATE TEXT. If in fact there was a process at the time that was not followed, then it seems like an Errata could be used. Whether it should be accepted or held for document update is unclear to me. There is no evidence that a WG effort to update this RFC will be quick. It may be a good idea to update the guidelines in a way that had any value to end users, but not an update to add some IETF procedural details. > Tom Petch > /js > Andy > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 01:10:59PM +0000, [email protected] > wrote: > > Hi Rob, all, > > > > I also think an errata is pragmatic here. > > > > On the bis, I think that this can be handled separately. If we scope the > bis to be ** limited to very few items ** to cover areas where we don’t > have guidelines (e.g., add “Guidelines for IANA-Maintained Modules”), and > in addition to the few errata out there, a bis can be delivered in a > reasonable timeframe. A candidate text for the Guidelines for > IANA-Maintained Modules can be seen at: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-netmod-iana-registries/. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Rob Wilton (rwilton) > > Sent: mercredi 5 avril 2023 14:17 > > To: Kathleen Moriarty <[email protected]>; Stephan > Wenger <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Jürgen Schönwälder > <[email protected]>; Deen, Glenn < > [email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] [Trustees] draft-moriarty-yangsecuritytext vs > errata > > > > Hi Kathleen, > > > > The short answer to your question is maybe. The longer answer is my > email reply to Stephan and Joel below. > > > > But if you are also okay, or at least don’t object, to the errata path, > then I will kick off a proposed errata so that it can reviewed/discussed. > > > > Regards, > > Rob > > > > > > From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> > > Sent: 04 April 2023 19:14 > > To: Stephan Wenger <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; > Jürgen Schönwälder <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>>; Joel Halpern <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; Deen, Glenn <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] [Trustees] draft-moriarty-yangsecuritytext vs > errata > > > > Rob, > > > > Multiple instances could be confusing, agreed. You’ll be going a -bis > soon anyway to update the considerations, is that correct? > > > > Thank you, > > Kathleen > > Sent from my mobile device > > > > On Apr 4, 2023, at 1:52 PM, Stephan Wenger <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > Thanks for your detailed response. I will not stand in the way of the > errata round, as it seems well justified. > > Stephan > > > > From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 09:47 > > To: Jürgen Schönwälder <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>>, Stephan Wenger <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, Joel Halpern <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> > > Cc: Kathleen Moriarty <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>>, Deen, Glenn <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>>, The IESG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > Subject: RE: [netmod] [Trustees] draft-moriarty-yangsecuritytext vs > errata > > Hi Stephan, Joel, > > > > I'm basically coming at this from a similar position as Jürgen. > > > > I regard RFC 8407 as providing general guidance to authors of YANG > modules both within and outside the IETF. I.e., it is providing best > practice guidelines for how YANG modules should be written and documented > in specifications. As such, it seems entirely reasonable to me that the at > the time that the draft was approved by the Netmod WG that the consensus > was that the security considerations template (or the updated wiki that is > references) could be used by specifications outside of the IETF. > > > > From the conversations that I had with Glenn recently, my interpretation > was that template text in RFCs SHOULD have the BEGIN/END TEMPLATE TEXT > markers around the template text to ensure that the appropriate IETF trust > licence applies to the template text. If that interpretation is correct, > then the lack of these markers just looks like a mistake in RFC 8407. > > > > Joel, to answer the specific question that you asked: No, I don’t think > that we would necessarily rev RFC 8407, but it is a possible outcome. The > current text in RFC 8407 allows for an updated template to be provided on > the wiki page and used in RFCs without necessarily needing to bis RFC > 8407. Hence I think that there are various questions with unknown answers > before we end up going down the RFC 8407 bis path, e.g., (i) does the > community agree with my proposed template changes (noting that I haven't > even written or provided them yet, only proposed changing them), (ii) can > this be done just by updating the wiki, (iii) is this clarification worth > the effort of opening RFC 8407 up for. I.e., if we ask the IEEE to wait > for a bis version of this document then I have no realistic idea about how > long they could be waiting or even if this would happen at all. > > > > Having a copy of the template text in a separate RFC also has its > downsides for the IETF community because there would then be three copies > of the security template, and if the template text does change as I propose > then it seems more likely that authors would end up picking the wrong > template for their documents. > > > > As for the precedence of using errata, I would be okay with that too - > i.e., I think that just shows that we can be pragmatic and not get stuck in > running extra process only for processes sake. > > > > Regards, > > Rob > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jürgen Schönwälder <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > Sent: 04 April 2023 16:43 > > > To: Stephan Wenger <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > > Cc: Joel Halpern <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; > Rob Wilton (rwilton) > > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Kathleen Moriarty < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > >>; > > > Deen, Glenn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] [Trustees] draft-moriarty-yangsecuritytext vs > errata > > > > > > We can consider this an editing error since we forgot to put markers > > > around the boilerplate. Nobody likely understood that these markers, > > > which were originally introduced for code components and to support > > > tools, have second legal meaning. This is for me the more subtle news > > > that likely more people need to understand. A grep over the RFCs found > > > BEGIN TEMPLATE TEXT only in RFC 7382. So BEGIN TEMPLATE TEXT is likely > > > not widely known and hence we forgot to include it. > > > > > > What kind of errata this is, I have no clue. I am also not concerned > > > about setting a precedent. I think we should be pragmatic here. > > > > > > /js > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 03:18:11PM +0000, Stephan Wenger wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Whether to use an erratum as a mechanism to address our little > problem is > > > not the Trust’s business, and I think the Trust doesn’t and shouldn’t > care—after > > > all, an accepted erratum is an integral part of the (modified) RFC. > > > > However, as an IETF participant I have to ask: Is using errata to > change the > > > outlicensing regime of (part of) an RFC a precedent the responsible > people > > > should set? We are not talking about correcting a typo here… > > > > Of course, pragmatically speaking and for this particular case, > using an > > > erratum may well be the right way forward for all the reasons Rob > points out. > > > But, if the timing were the driving force for selecting errata over > new RFCs, I > > > would rather suggest the IEEE folks have to wait a bit longer, while > you guys rev > > > the RFC. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > From: Trustees <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> on behalf of Joel Halpern > > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 08:01 > > > > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>>, Kathleen > > > Moriarty <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> > > > > Cc: Deen, Glenn <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, The IESG > > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > Subject: Re: [Trustees] [netmod] draft-moriarty-yangsecuritytext vs > errata > > > > 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 <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> > > > > >> Sent: 03 April 2023 21:14 > > > > >> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> > > > > >> Cc: Deen, Glenn <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > > > > >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > >> 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) < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I'm getting an out-of-office bounce from Glenn, so adding > > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > > >> 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: [email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>; Deen, Glenn > > > > >>>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > >>>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; The IESG < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > >>>> 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 > > > > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Trustees mailing list > > > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > netmod mailing list > > > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH > > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://constructor.university/> > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme > ou falsifie. Merci. > > > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have > been modified, changed or falsified. > > Thank you. > > > > -- > Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://constructor.university/> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
