Re: [Anima] updates to XML for draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-41

2020-05-21 Thread Michael Richardson
Michael Richardson  wrote:
>> In the Security Considerations I encounter MTIM which I suspect should
>> be MITM (and which needs expanding on first use in s.5).

oops, I missed committing this one.

___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima


[Anima] updates to XML for draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-41

2020-05-21 Thread Michael Richardson

RFC-editor, the diffs against XML (v3) for this document can be found at:
   
https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/commit/3b70d50bab007f90fed971fdcc48ca96482a8d46#diff-f0a44b214cc91a0645f06f65da3e26b6

WG: I have posted these changes to the github, and I could post the XML as
-42 if told to, but I don't want to confuse anyone.

There are a four missing trailing periods fixed, btw.
There is some change in the reference file for ietf-netconf-keystore, which I 
think
is the result of a bug in the reference.foobar files (out of my
control). See the line 5736 diff.
I don't think the reference file should have that , but I think the
XML->TXT throws that out, but the XML is authoritative now...

Brian E Carpenter  wrote:
> Again thanks to Michael Richardson, here are some important nits in the
> GRASP examples in the BRSKI draft. The CDDL syntax is correct, but the
> examples need to be corrected as below. The errors are in nesting
> levels within the flood message, just two pairs of missing [].

I have updated the github and the generated XML (these examples were split
off into mostly easily maintained files).

tom petch  wrote:
> I note that part of the formal specification is in CDDL and while other
> DDL - ASN.1, SMI, YANG - are bracketed with CODE BEGINS CODE ENDS - the
> CDDL is not. I suspect that it should be - perhaps a note to the RFC
> Editor is called for.

This mechanism is a homebrew insert-figures routine, and it didn't consider
CDDL.  I have renamed the files to .cddl, and adjusted the insert-figures.

> In the Security Considerations I encounter MTIM which I suspect should
> be MITM (and which needs expanding on first use in s.5).



> In the YANG module, I see two references in square brackets which
> suggests that they are in XML/HTML and not plain text whereas there is
> a requirement for YANG modules to be in plain text so that they can be
> extracted from the RFC.

If you are looking at the HTML-ized tools-version of the document, then it
expands all sorts of things.  All of the YANG is text as far as I can see.

--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-





signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima