On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 at 16:55, tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > From: tirumal reddy <[email protected]> > Sent: 13 October 2022 07:57 > > Thanks Tom for the review. Yes, we will fix the references identified by > Tom. > > <tp> > -09 looks better. > > I still see a mix of TLS-1.2 and TLS-1-2; I am not sure if there is a > rationale for that. I prefer the former but that mix of characters may > confuse others. >
Good point, fixed in my copy https://github.com/tireddy2/mud-tls/blob/master/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-10.txt . > > I see a number of editorial issues - I do not know if you want to look at > those now or leave them to Last Call. > Please feel free to raise the editorial issues, we will fix them. > > One slightly technical one is that it is very rare to start a YANG prefix > with ietf as the IANA webpages show - filename, MUST, prefix SHOULD NOT > IMHO. Thus acl has a prefix of acl so I would see the augment as acl-tls > and not ietf-acl-tls; but mud is ietf-mud (unfortunately:-( so the augment > is perhaps better as ietf-mud-tls. We followed the format similar to ietf-access-control-list (YANG data model of network ACL) and ietf-mud to be consistent. Cheers, -Tiru > > > Tom Petch > > Cheers, > -Tiru > > On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 at 18:37, Henk Birkholz < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > Hi Tom, > > would it be possible for you to augment your first comment with change > proposals, if possible? > > @authors: it seems to me that the references issues Tom now provided in > specific detail could be resolved in this thread in a timely manner. Is > that correct? > > Viele GrΓΌΓe, > > Henk > > On 12.10.22 13:39, tom petch wrote: > > From: OPSAWG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > on behalf of Henk Birkholz <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> > > Sent: 06 October 2022 13:26 > > > > Dear authors and contributors, > > > > thank you for your hard work. As it seems that all existing issues have > > been resolve, we'll move the I-D to write-up in the datatracker. > > > > Also, thanks Thomas Fossati for stepping up as shepherd! > > > > <tp> > > My main comment on this remains the mix of two different YANG modules > with different life cycles; I expect that l will comment again on the Last > Call list to give this issue more exposure. > > > > Of lesser import, I cannot make sense of the references. > > I see [RFC5246] which normally means that a reference has been created. > Not here, so there would seem to have been some chicanery involved, that > this I-D has not been produced by the usual IETF tools. > > > > I also see RFC5869, RFC6346, RFC8447 which seem absent from the I-D > References. > > > > dtls13 is now an RFC. > > > > What is the difference between > > draft-ietf-tls-dtls13: > > and > > "RFC DDDD: Datagram Transport Layer Security 1.3"; > > ? > > How do I find > > "RFC CCCC: Common YANG Data Types for Cryptography"; > > or > > "RFC IIII: Common YANG Data Types for Hash algorithms"; ? > > > > Does tls-1-2 mean the same as tls-1.2? And is this the same as that > which the Netconf WG refers to as tls12? > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > > For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > > > > Henk > > > > > > On 29.09.22 10:27, Henk Birkholz wrote: > >> Dear OPSAWG members, > >> > >> this email concludes the first WGLC call for > >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07.html. > >> > >> A few comments where raised. Authors/editors, please go ahead and > >> address these as discussed on the list. > >> > >> > >> For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > >> > >> Henk > >> > >> On 14.09.22 16:07, Henk Birkholz wrote: > >>> Dear OPSAWG members, > >>> > >>> this email starts a two week period for a Working Group Last Call of > >>> > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07.html > >>> > >>> ending on Thursday, September 28th. > >>> > >>> The authors believe the Internet-Draft is ready for a WGLC and the > >>> chairs agree. The draft has been discussed visibly at IETF 114 and > >>> review feedback has been incorporated in -07. > >>> > >>> Please send your comments to the list and your assessment of whether > >>> or not it is ready to proceed to publication before September 28th. > >>> > >>> > >>> For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > >>> > >>> Henk > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OPSAWG mailing list > >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
