I have read this document, and I feel it is nearly ready. Speaking as chair, I would like some more eyes on it, so I’ve requested reviews from OPS and SEC DIRs.
In my read through the document, I paid close attention to MIB changes, and your revision description looks accurate. I do wonder if changing some of the text to reflect more normative-style wording works in all cases, though. Take for example under SnmpTLSAddress where you have changed “may not” to “MUST NOT”. It now reads as values of this TC MUST NOT be directly usable as transport-layer addressing information, and _may_ require run-time resolution. I think your new phrasing is wrong here. I think in this case, “may not” is correct. Other than that, I’m not opposed to the stronger language. In terms of IANA considerations, I think they are clear, though it may be better to adjust the new registry reference in the MIB to be clearer that this is to be replaced with a more specific URI. Joe From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 04:40 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update Hello, WG. I hope those that were in Philadelphia had a safe trip home and good vacations (if you had them). As we stated during the 114 meeting, we want to conduct a working group last call for the “Updates to the TLS Transport Model for SNMP” document. We will run this last call for two weeks, ending on August 25, 2022. Please provide your thoughts and comments before then. Also, if someone is interested in serving as document shepherd for this draft, please let the chairs know. Thanks. Joe
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
