Hi Acee,

Yes, I've been confused (more than once) by ietf-key-chain and ietf-key-store. Sorry.

The correct graph is here.
http://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-key-chain&orgs[]=ietf&recurse=0&rfcs=1
And thanks to Joe Clarke for improving the tool in real-time.

The graph shows a dependency on the ietf-netconf-acm YANG module.
Checking the draft...

   <CODE BEGINS> file "[email protected]"
   module ietf-key-chain {
       namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-key-chain";
       // replace with IANA namespace when assigned
       prefix "key-chain";
      import ietf-yang-types {
           prefix "yang";
       }

       import ietf-netconf-acm {
           prefix "nacm";

The normative reference shows:

       [NETCONF-ACM]
                  Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
                  Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model",RFC 6536 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6536>, March
                  2012

We have in fact two ietf-netconf-acm YANG modules
    One from RFC 6536
One from [email protected], draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-00.txt <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis>

Which one do you depend on? Do you want to use import by revision, or you want to use the future draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-00.txt <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis>?

Regards, Benoit
Hi Benoit,

This is the IETF key-chain model which is comprised of a lists of symmetric keys that are used for applications such as routing protocol authentication and encryption. The IETF keystore model is comprised of lists of asymmetric keys and certificates that are used for applications such as NETCONF authentication and encryption. The two models are in no way dependent on one another.

Thanks,
Acee

From: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:57 AM
To: Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Routing WG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: rtgwg-chairs <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Kent Watsen <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain

    On 2/7/2017 12:53 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
    I support as a co-author. This IETF YANG model is currently
    referenced by a number or the other protocol models for
    specification of authentication keys including OSPF, IS-IS, RIP,
    and VRRP.
    And note that there are dependencies on some NETCONF WG documents.
    
http://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-keychain&orgs[]=ietf&recurse=1&rfcs=1

    Basically, this "Client/Server Configuration Model" package, i.e.
    those drafts:
        draft-ietf-netconf-keystore-00 Keystore Model
        draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-client-server-00 SSH Client and Server
    Models
        draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-00 TLS Client and Server
    Models
        draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-00 NETCONF Client and
    Server Models
        draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server-00 RESTCONF Client
    and Server Models

    For this package, see
    
http://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-tls-client&modules[]=ietf-tls-server&modules[]=ietf-ssh-client&modules[]=ietf-ssh-server&modules[]=ietf-restconf-client&modules[]=ietf-restconf-server&modules[]=ietf-key-store&modules[]=ietf-netconf-client&modules[]=ietf-netconf-server&orgs[]=ietf&recurse=&rfcs=1



    Copying the NETCONF chairs, to get the latest status, and to make
    sure this NETCONF package progresses at the same pace.

    Regards, Benoit

    Thanks,
    Acee
    P.S. Not aware of any IPR in case you want to ask again ;^)

    From: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>>
    Date: Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:35 PM
    To: Routing WG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
    Cc: rtgwg-chairs <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>>,
    "[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>"
    <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>>
    Subject: Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain
    Resent-From: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
    Resent-To: Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
    Jeffrey Zhang <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Helen Chen
    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Yingzhen Qu
    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
    Resent-Date: Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:35 PM

        Dear RTGWG,

        There have been significant changes to the
        draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain draft.

        We would like the wg to review the updated draft and hence
        start another, 1 week long WGLC.

        Please indicate support/ no-support by February 13, 2017.

        Thanks,

        Jeff & Chris

        *From: *Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>>
        *Date: *Friday, September 9, 2016 at 16:11
        *To: *RTGWG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
        *Cc: *rtgwg-chairs <[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>>,
        <[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>>
        *Subject: *Last Call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain

        Dear RTGWG,

        The authors have requested the RTGWG to last call
        draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain

        There was consensus that document is ready for the last call
        during the last IETF meeting and the authors have addressed
        all the comments from Directorate QA review.

        Please indicate support or no-support by September 23rd, 2016.

        IPR:

        If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please
        respond to this email.

        of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The
        response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list.

        The document will not advance to the next stage until a
        response has been received from each author and each

        individual that has contributed to the document.

        Thanks,

        Jeff & Chris



    _______________________________________________
    rtgwg mailing list
    [email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg


_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Reply via email to