I just noticed that an important sentence somehow got deleted from the definition of SnmpTLSFingerprint definition. The missing sentence that was in the original RFC 6353 occurs at the end of the second paragraph and reads as follows:
> The remaining octets are filled using the results of the hashing algorithm. Should I produce a new 07 draft now or have you already sent to the IESG (in which case, I can presumably take care of it during final editing)? Regards, Ken Vaughn Trevilon LLC 6606 FM 1488 RD #148-503 Magnolia, TX 77354 +1-571-331-5670 cell [email protected] www.trevilon.com > On Sep 26, 2022, at 7:55 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey, Ken and WG. I did not hear back on any interested shepherd, so I’ll > take this one up and move this forward to IESG. I will have the shepherd > review and write-up ready this week. > > Joe > > From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) > <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 at 15:24 > To: Kenneth Vaughn <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-06.txt > > Thanks, Ken. Your new text addresses my concern on the use of MUST NOT. > > I’m a bit disappointed we didn’t see other reviews from the directorates, but > perhaps the summer doldrums are still at play. > > What other comments do people have on the current draft? If none, I’ll close > the LC. We do need a document shepherd. If anyone is interested, please let > me know. > > Joe > > From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Kenneth Vaughn > <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 at 4:57 PM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-06.txt > > Based on the comments received during the Last Call process, I: > - Updated the boilerplate text for the reference to BCP14 > - Clarified the 5th paragraph of the definition of SnmpTLSAddress, and > - and updated the revision notes of the MODULE-IDENTIFY macro to reflect the > above tweak. > > I believe this version resolves all comments made to date. > > Regards, > Ken Vaughn > > Trevilon LLC > 6606 FM 1488 RD #148-503 > Magnolia, TX 77354 > +1-571-331-5670 cell > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > www.trevilon.com <http://www.trevilon.com/> > > > > On Sep 9, 2022, at 3:53 PM, [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group > WG of the IETF. > > Title : Updates to the TLS Transport Model for SNMP > Author : Kenneth Vaughn > Filename : draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-06.txt > Pages : 31 > Date : 2022-09-09 > > Abstract: > This document updates the TLS Transport Model (TLSTM), as defined in > RFC 6353, to reflect changes necessary to support Transport Layer > Security Version 1.3 (TLS 1.3) and Datagram Transport Layer Security > Version 1.3 (DTLS 1.3), which are jointly known as "(D)TLS 1.3". > This document is compatible with (D)TLS 1.2 and is intended to be > compatible with future versions of SNMP and (D)TLS. > > This document updates the SNMP-TLS-TM-MIB as defined in RFC 6353. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/> > > There is also an HTML version available at: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-06.html > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-06 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
