I have briefly looked at the abstract / intro of both documents and I am not sure I got from this why we do have two keychain models. Perhaps both documents should be send to the security area as input for a joint keychain data model?
/js On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 03:10:38PM -0700, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > That or we could also rename it to protocol-key-chain to disambiguate it > from system-key-chain. > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So hopefully we’ve put the issue of combining the module to bed for good… > > If look at the date nodes for these two models, it is patently clear that > > these serve two different purposes. > > > > What about the naming issue? I got a comment that I should take “routing-“ > > back out due to the fact that this is what that these key-chains can be > > used for many non-routing purposes. For example, BFD - > > http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos14.2/topics/reference/configuration-statement/key-chain-edit-security-authentication-key-chains.html > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > From: rtgwg <[email protected]> on behalf of Acee Lindem < > > [email protected]> > > Date: Monday, April 18, 2016 at 6:04 PM > > To: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> > > Cc: Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]>, Tom Petch <[email protected]>, " > > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > > <[email protected]>, Routing WG <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Netconf] mbj review of > > draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-server-model-09 > > > > > > > > From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> > > Date: Monday, April 18, 2016 at 4:43 PM > > To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> > > Cc: Kent Watsen <[email protected]>, Tom Petch <[email protected]>, > > Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > > Routing WG <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > > [email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Netconf] mbj review of > > draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-server-model-09 > > > > > > On Apr 18, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I did get some negative feedback with respect to adding “routing-“ to the > > model name since key chains are used for other non-routing applications as > > well. > > > > > > One of those non-routing protocols is BFD. I am fine if the model is > > called protocol-key-chain, but I wonder what happens the next entity > > needing key-chain is not a protocol. > > > > The bigger question in my mind is, are these really different types of > > key-chains models, or are we talking about one key-chain model? > > > > > > The rtgwg key chain model is the one we all know and love associated with > > the graceful rollover of configurable keys. The netconf model is list of > > certificates for a public key. Please look at the information content of > > the two models. I hope I don’t have to answer this question again ;^) > > > > Acee > > > > > > > > > > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mahesh Jethanandani > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
