As a contributor, I think this document is mostly ready (and as previously stated, I like and support the work). That said, after another read I found a few spelling nits and some comments:
In Section 2, you paint the picture of a scenario, but “break the fourth wall” to explain what is existing and what is new functionality as well as state that the document prescribes using the SN as the unique identifier. In the spirit of a scenario with additional context, I think you should clarify that the DHCP boot of an out-of-the-box device is _typically_ existing functionality. Some vendors’ devices may not do this. === Section 3.1: s/intially/initially/ s/contrained/constrained/ s/certifcates/certificates/ === Section 3.2: s/identfiers/identifiers/ s/certificat/certificate/ s/certifcates/certificates/ === Section 4.2: s/certifcate/certificate/ === Section 4.3: s/certifcate/certificate/ s/it never need/it never needs/ I think you need some definition of “garbage” when doing config “tasting”. It may be required that you standardize a header to indicate that the config file is encrypted so the device doesn’t try to process what could potentially be _lots_ of true garbage. You have a sentence here about the exact detection method being out of scope (which is true for what is a config), but saying anything else is decryptable may not please the security folks too much. Joe > On Feb 4, 2020, at 12:41, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > With the publication of -02 of this draft, it seems to have reached > stability. There has been interest in both usage an implementation of this > draft expressed in the past, but discussion has been quiet lately. > > This email serves as a two-week start of a WG LC for this document. Please > [re-]read this draft and comment on its content as well as whether or not you > feel it’s ready. WG LC will conclude on February 18, 2020. > > Authors and contributors, please reply on-list as to whether or not you are > aware of any intellectual property attributed to this work. Reply that > either you are not aware of any such IP, or reply with the details of known > IP while also making sure you complete any IPR disclosures in data tracker. > > Joe and Tianran > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
