Re: [OPSAWG] [IANA #1267381] expert review for draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access (well-known-uris)

[Mark Nottingham]

That looks fine to me.

Cheers,


> On 1 Mar 2023, at 9:38 am, David Dong via RT 
>  wrote:
> 
> Dear Mark (cc: opsawg WG),
> 
> As the designated expert for the Well-Known URIs registry, can you review the 
> proposed registration in draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access for us? Please see
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access/
> 
> The due date is March 14, 2023.
> 
> If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, we'll 
> make the registration at
> 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/
> 
> With thanks,
> 
> David Dong
> IANA Services Specialist

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] [IANA #1267380] expert review for draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access (xml-registry)

[Martin Thomson]

LGTM, thanks.

On Wed, Mar 1, 2023, at 09:34, David Dong via RT wrote:
> Dear Tim and Martin (cc: opsawg WG),
>
> As the designated experts for the ns registry, can you review the 
> proposed registration in draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access for us? Please 
> see
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access/
>
> The due date is March 14, 2023.
>
> If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, 
> we'll make the registration at
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/
>
> With thanks,
>
> David Dong
> IANA Services Specialist

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

[OPSAWG] [IANA #1267381] expert review for draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access (well-known-uris)

[David Dong via RT]

Dear Mark (cc: opsawg WG),

As the designated expert for the Well-Known URIs registry, can you review the 
proposed registration in draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access for us? Please see

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access/

The due date is March 14, 2023.

If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, we'll make 
the registration at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/

With thanks,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

[OPSAWG] [IANA #1267380] expert review for draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access (xml-registry)

[David Dong via RT]

Dear Tim and Martin (cc: opsawg WG),

As the designated experts for the ns registry, can you review the proposed 
registration in draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access for us? Please see

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access/

The due date is March 14, 2023.

If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, we'll make 
the registration at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

With thanks,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

[OPSAWG] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker]

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/



--
COMMENT:
--

Thanks for working on this specification. Special thanks for the shepherd's
write-up, it was very helpful.

I was just wondering - as there is an intended impact on the future here,

   "Renegotiation of sessions is not supported as it is not supported by TLS
   1.3."

what is the intended implication on the application of future versions of TLS?



___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

[Randy Presuhn]

Hi -

On 2023-02-28 6:39 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:

Thanks for the review, Eric (and Lars).

There was no formal MIB Doctor review, but we did receive comments from 
Jürgen and Randy, who are members of MIB Doctors (I believe), during the 
progress of this draft.  Those comments were helpful in deciding on the 
language changes within the MIB object descriptions, as well as fixing 
some syntax errors.


https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm_list=opsawg_from=J%C3%BCrgen%20Sch%C3%B6nw%C3%A4lder
 


https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm_list=opsawg_from=Randy%20Presuhn 


I know they weren’t reviewing in the formal MIB Doctors sense.  If the 
IESG feels a more formal MIB Doctor review is needed, we can ask for it.


My comments were only with regard to linguistic issues in a single
object description.  I don't remember reviewing this document in
its entirety, but I could be mistaken.

However, if Jürgen's assessment of the amount of change from the RFC
is correct, then a full-on MIB Doctor review is likely not warranted.
However, it's always a good idea to have someone look carefully at
the changes from a MIB Doctor perspective.  I lost count of the times
students came to me complaining that their FORTRAN programs no longer
compiled, and defended their bafflement with "but I only changed one
line."

Randy

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

[OPSAWG] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder via Datatracker]

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/



--
COMMENT:
--

Thanks for this document. Thanks also to Joe Clarke for the detailed and 
helpful shepherd right up.

I noticed one nit that I don’t think I’ve seen mentioned yet, “SMNPv3” -> 
“SNMPv3”.



___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

[Jürgen Schönwälder]

It may help to point out that the MIB module is mostly unchanged,
nothing in the design or structure of the MIB module did change
as far as I know.

/js

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 02:39:47PM +, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
> Thanks for the review, Eric (and Lars).
> 
> There was no formal MIB Doctor review, but we did receive comments from 
> Jürgen and Randy, who are members of MIB Doctors (I believe), during the 
> progress of this draft.  Those comments were helpful in deciding on the 
> language changes within the MIB object descriptions, as well as fixing some 
> syntax errors.
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm_list=opsawg_from=J%C3%BCrgen%20Sch%C3%B6nw%C3%A4lder
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm_list=opsawg_from=Randy%20Presuhn
> 
> I know they weren’t reviewing in the formal MIB Doctors sense.  If the IESG 
> feels a more formal MIB Doctor review is needed, we can ask for it.
> 
> Joe
> 
> From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker 
> Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 08:32
> To: The IESG 
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-upd...@ietf.org 
> , opsawg-cha...@ietf.org 
> , opsawg@ietf.org , Joe Clarke 
> (jclarke) , Joe Clarke (jclarke) 
> Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: 
> (with COMMENT)
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/
> 
> 
> 
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
> 
> 
> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12
> CC @evyncke
> 
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
> 
> Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points.
> 
> Special thanks to Joe Clarke for the shepherd's detailed write-up including 
> the
> WG consensus **and** the justification of the intended status.
> 
> I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> ## COMMENTS
> 
> ### MIB Doctor review
> 
> Like Lars, I wonder whether there was a MIB doctor review.
> 
> ### Section 3.1
> 
> This text is repeated, is it on purpose ?
> ```
> The reason 0-RTT is disallowed is that there are no "safe" messages that if
> replayed will be guaranteed to cause no harm at a server side: all incoming
> notification or command responses are meant to be acted upon only once. See
> Security considerations section for further details ```
> 
> ## Notes
> 
> This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
> [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
> individual GitHub issues.
> 
> [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
> 
> 

> ___
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg


-- 
Jürgen Schönwälder  Constructor University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

[Joe Clarke (jclarke)]

Thanks for the review, Eric (and Lars).

There was no formal MIB Doctor review, but we did receive comments from Jürgen 
and Randy, who are members of MIB Doctors (I believe), during the progress of 
this draft.  Those comments were helpful in deciding on the language changes 
within the MIB object descriptions, as well as fixing some syntax errors.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm_list=opsawg_from=J%C3%BCrgen%20Sch%C3%B6nw%C3%A4lder

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm_list=opsawg_from=Randy%20Presuhn

I know they weren’t reviewing in the formal MIB Doctors sense.  If the IESG 
feels a more formal MIB Doctor review is needed, we can ask for it.

Joe

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker 
Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 08:32
To: The IESG 
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-upd...@ietf.org 
, opsawg-cha...@ietf.org 
, opsawg@ietf.org , Joe Clarke 
(jclarke) , Joe Clarke (jclarke) 
Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with 
COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/



--
COMMENT:
--


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points.

Special thanks to Joe Clarke for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the
WG consensus **and** the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### MIB Doctor review

Like Lars, I wonder whether there was a MIB doctor review.

### Section 3.1

This text is repeated, is it on purpose ?
```
The reason 0-RTT is disallowed is that there are no "safe" messages that if
replayed will be guaranteed to cause no harm at a server side: all incoming
notification or command responses are meant to be acted upon only once. See
Security considerations section for further details ```

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments


___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

[OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/



--
COMMENT:
--


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points.

Special thanks to Joe Clarke for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the
WG consensus **and** the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### MIB Doctor review

Like Lars, I wonder whether there was a MIB doctor review.

### Section 3.1

This text is repeated, is it on purpose ?
```
The reason 0-RTT is disallowed is that there are no "safe" messages that if
replayed will be guaranteed to cause no harm at a server side: all incoming
notification or command responses are meant to be acted upon only once. See
Security considerations section for further details ```

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments



___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-11

[Lars Eggert]

Joel, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this 
document.

Lars


> On Feb 10, 2023, at 01:56, Joel Halpern via Datatracker  
> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> .
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-11
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review Date: 2023-02-09
> IETF LC End Date: 2023-02-20
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
> 
> Major issues: N/A
> 
> Minor issues:
>In the fourth paragraph of section 1.1, the text refers to "a secure
>association between two TLS Transport Models (TLSTMs)".  As I understand
>the terminology, there is one TLSTM.  There are two instances of /
>realizations of the model.  Should the sentence refer to instances or
>realizations, rather than two models? (i-d nits gets confused by the
>references to rfc 5953 in the revision description.  After looking at it, I
>realized there was no problem here, rather it is accurate.  A comment on
>this in item 14 of the shepherd writeup would have been helpful.)
> 
> Nits/editorial comments: N/A
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Gen-art mailing list
> gen-...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

[OPSAWG] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

[Lars Eggert via Datatracker]

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/



--
COMMENT:
--

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Joel Halpern for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/VI00LPj0gVfsGW_qOfw9JlGAJdE).

## Comments

### Paragraph 2
```
Updates to the TLS Transport Model for SNMP
 draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12
```
Was there a mibdoctors review of this I-D? Should there be?

### Section 1, paragraph 1
```
 This document updates and clarifies how the rules of [RFC6353] apply
 when using Transport Layer Security (TLS) or Datagram Transport Layer
 Security (DTLS) versions later than 1.2.  This document jointly
 refers to these two protocols as "(D)TLS".  The update also
 incorporates the [RFC8996] update, which prohibits the use of TLS
 versions prior to TLS 1.2.
```
Should this document then not also obsolete RFC8996?

### Missing references

No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text:
`[RFC3413]`, `[RFC2579]`, `[RFC3411]`, `[RFC2578]`, and `[RFC2580]`.

### Uncited references

Document updates `RFC6353`, but does not cite it as a reference, which is a bit
odd.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Outdated references

Reference `[RFC5953]` to `RFC5953`, which was obsoleted by `RFC6353` (this may
be on purpose).

Reference `[RFC5246]` to `RFC5246`, which was obsoleted by `RFC8446` (this may
be on purpose).

### Grammar/style

 Section 4, paragraph 28
```
s not specify converting to lowercase so this involves an extra step). This
 ^^^
```
Use a comma before "so" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are
closely connected and short).

 Section 4, paragraph 90
```
nd this hash value MUST match exactly or the connection MUST NOT be establis
 ^^^
```
Use a comma before "or" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are
closely connected and short).

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool



___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Call for presentation//FW: [116all] IETF 116 Preliminary Agenda

[Benoit Claise]

Dear Tianran,

I would like to get some time to present an update of 
draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest 


The authors are busy updating the draft.
15 min would be sufficient.

Regards, Benoit

On 2/27/2023 9:05 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote:

Hi WG,

The IETF116 preliminary agenda is posted.
The OPSAWG meeting is scheduled at 09:30 - 11:30 Tuesday Session I.
We open the call for presentation on the meeting.
Please send over your request with the topic, speaker, time slot to the chairs.

Look forward to seeing you in Yokohama.

Cheers,
Tianran

-Original Message-
From: 116all [mailto:116all-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of IETF Agenda
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2023 6:50 AM
To: IETF Announcement List
Cc:i...@ietf.org;116...@ietf.org
Subject: [116all] IETF 116 Preliminary Agenda

IETF 116
Yokohama, Japan
March 25-31, 2023
Hosted By: WIDE


The IETF 116 Preliminary Agenda has been posted. The final agenda will be 
published on Friday, March 3, 2023.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/agenda.html
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/agenda.txt

The preliminary agenda includes all planned WG, RG, and BoF sessions. 
Information about side meetings will be available when the final agenda is 
posted.

IETF 116 Information:https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/116/
Register online at:https://registration.ietf.org/116/

Don’t forget to register for these exciting IETF 116 events!


Social Event

The Osanbashi Pier's multipurpose hall will be transformed into a wonderful 
social event location for IETF 116 attendees in Yokohama.

Attendees will be delighted by the music of internationally renowned artist 
Kaoru Watanabe, delicious food and a Japanese sake corner introducing attendees 
to sake from all thirteen sake breweries in Kanagawa Prefecture.

- Date: Thursday, March 30

- Start/End Times: 19:00 – 21:30

- Cost per ticket: $25 per ticket

- Limit of tickets per attendee: Two per attendee.

More information:
https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/116/social/
https://ietf116.jp/social-event/  



Hackathon

Onsite signup:https://registration.ietf.org/116/new/hackathon_onsite/
Remote signup:https://registration.ietf.org/116/new/hackathon_remote/   
More information:https://www.ietf.org/how/runningcode/hackathons/116-hackathon/
Keep up to date by subscribing 
to:https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hackathon


Code Sprint

More information and signups:https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-116-tools#

___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg