> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 4/25/17, 10:38 AM, "Ben Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:12 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ben, >>> >>> On 4/24/17, 10:15 PM, "Ben Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >>>> draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain-20: No Objection >>>> >>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Please refer to >>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>> >>>> >>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> COMMENT: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Just a couple of editorial comments: >>>> >>>> -2.2: "This MAY be accomplished by accepting all the keys that have a >>>> valid accept lifetime and sending the key with the most recent send >>>> lifetime." >>>> As written, that MAY sounds like a statement of fact rather than a >>>> normative requirement. If it's intended as normative, please consider >>>> restating in terms of actual procedure (e.g. "The receiver MAY accept >>>> ...") >>> >>> I could either restate it or simply replace the “MAY” with “can”. Since >>> whether or not graceful key roll-over can be accomplished with >>> key-chains >>> has been an area of operator confusion as well as vendors not >>> implementing >>> it properly for all applications, I’m going to attempt the former. >>> >>> The receiver MAY accept all the keys that have a valid accept >>> lifetime and then MAY send the key with the most recent send >>> lifetime to perform graceful key rollover. >> >> That works for me, except maybe “receiver” doesn’t make as much sense if >> we are talking about both accepting and sending. > > To achieve graceful key rollover, the receiver MAY accept all > the keys that have a valid accept lifetime and the sender MAY > send the key with the most recent send lifetime.
Looks good to me. > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> -3, first paragraph: "Is a "key chain key" a key in the keychain, or >>>> something else? (maybe a key _for_ the keychain)? >>> >>> This is one key from a key chain. In the ietf-key-chain model, we used >>> to >>> call these key-entry(s) rather than key(s). However, this was simplified >>> based on reviews. I believe it was Martin Bjorklund who suggested just >>> calling them keys. If you read the entire paragraph, I believe the >>> context >>> is clear. >> >> From the context, I guessed we were likely talking about a key in the key >> chain. But I had to stop and think about it. Maybe “member of the >> keychain”? > > The reason I use “key” is that is what the list data node is referred to > as. The alternative would be to use “key list element” so it is clear that > the “Model Design” section is referring to this data node in the model. Of > course, I think this is clear without this. Okay, I’m convinced. Thanks! Ben. _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
