Thanks Rich! Your help before was hugely instrumental to getting us here :) K. > On Jan 22, 2024, at 10:49 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Seems the Netconf Crypto stuff is almost out the door. > > Congrats! > > On 1/22/24, 10:47 AM, "last-call on behalf of Dale Worley via Datatracker" <last-call-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:last-call-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of noreply@xxxxxxxx <mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > Reviewer: Dale Worley > Review result: Ready with Nits > > > 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 > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq__;!!GjvTz_vk!WP1AIKvopR5fAdu49leEn5l7T1tMA_QG7ZaNEffIBzhPf06pDJ1-Cn9DM1WCQcq3yAUrgUv7BWgy$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq__;!!GjvTz_vk!WP1AIKvopR5fAdu49leEn5l7T1tMA_QG7ZaNEffIBzhPf06pDJ1-Cn9DM1WCQcq3yAUrgUv7BWgy$> >. > > > Document: review-draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-28 > Reviewer: Dale R. Worley > Review Date: 2024-01-22 > IETF LC End Date: 2024-01-24 > IESG Telechat date: [not known] > > > Summary: > > > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that > should be fixed before publication. > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) > > > Tree-diagrams in this draft may use the '/' line-folding mode defined > in RFC 8792. However, nicer-to-the-eye is when the '//' line-folding > mode is used. The AD suggested suggested putting a request here for > the RFC Editor to help convert "ugly" '/' folded examples to use the > '//' folding mode. "Help convert" may be interpreted as, identify > what looks ugly and ask the authors to make the adjustment. > > > Throughout this paragraph, slash '/' should be replaced by backslash > '\'. > > > 1.1. Relation to other RFCs > > > The dependency relationship between the primary YANG groupings > defined in the various RFCs is presented in the below diagram. > > > Perhaps there is a convention that I am not aware of, but when I see > in the figure e.g. > > > crypto-types > ^ ^ > / \ > / \ > truststore keystore > > > does that mean that crypto-types contains a reference to truststore, > or does it mean that truststore contains a reference to crypto-types? > The usual convention is that arrows point from referencer to > referenced, but also the usual convention is that the referenced thing > is written physically below the referencer. Perhaps add an > explanatory sentence. > > > Table 1: Label to RFC Mapping > > > In -28, this caption appears visually to be the caption of both the > dependency diagram at the top of page 5 and the label-to-RFC mapping > table at the bottom of page 5, and so probably should be amended to > describe both of them together. > > > 1.4. Conventions > > > Various examples used in this document use a placeholder value for > binary data that has been base64 encoded (e.g., "BASE64VALUE="). > > > This would be clearer if it stated directly that the (only) > placeholder value used is "BASE64VALUE=". Perhaps > > > Various examples in this document use "BASE64VALUE=" as a > placeholder value for (usually binary) data has has been base64 > encoded. > > > 2.1.2. Identities > > > +-- csr-format > +-- p10-csr-format {p10-csr-format?} > > > This construct ends with "?}", whereas a number of other constructs > end with "}?". Are all of these correct? > > > 2.1.3. Typedefs > > > * Additionally, all the typedefs define a type for encoding an ASN.1 > [ITU.X680.2021] structure using DER [ITU.X690.2021]. > > > It seems like it would be useful to have a typedef "asn-1-der" that > extends "binary", to be used specifically for DER-encoded ASN.1 data, > and which in turn is extended here. E.g. > > > binary > +-- asn-1-der > +-- csr-info > +-- csr > +-- x509 > | +-- trust-anchor-cert-x509 > ... > > > Unfortunately, what would make such an extended type valuable is that > DER-encoded ASH.1 strings are used in a number of RFCs, which means > that this document might not be the best place to introduce such an > extended type. > > > 2.3. YANG Module > > > I am no expert on Yang, so my examination of the module itself was > superficial. The Datatracker says that Yang doctors looked at -18 on > 2021-01-12, which presumably means that -19 reflected their report. > The differences between the module in -19 and -28 appear to me to to > be minor. > > > 3.5. Strength of Keys Conveyed > > > ... it is desireable ... > > > Wiktionary describes "desireable" as "an archaic form of desirable". > The RFC Editor's opinion on this should probably be sought. > > > 3.10. The "ietf-crypto-types" YANG Module > > > The title of this section seems to be uninformative given that 'The > "ietf-crypto-types" YANG Module' is the subject of the entire > document. Is this title what was intended? > > > Some of the readable data nodes defined in this YANG module may be > considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It > is thus important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, > or notification) to these data nodes. These are the subtrees and > data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability: > > > The use of "These" in the last sentence does not have an unambiguous > referent as I read it. Perhaps "These subtrees/data nodes have these > particular sensitivities/vulnerabilities:" Similar considerations > apply to the last sentence of: > > > Some of the operations in this YANG module may be considered > sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus > important to control access to these operations. These are the > operations and their sensitivity/vulnerability: > > > [END] > > > > > > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx <mailto:last-call@xxxxxxxx> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call__;!!GjvTz_vk!WP1AIKvopR5fAdu49leEn5l7T1tMA_QG7ZaNEffIBzhPf06pDJ1-Cn9DM1WCQcq3yAUrgV8TlRY0$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call__;!!GjvTz_vk!WP1AIKvopR5fAdu49leEn5l7T1tMA_QG7ZaNEffIBzhPf06pDJ1-Cn9DM1WCQcq3yAUrgV8TlRY0$> > > > > _______________________________________________ > netconf mailing list > netconf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
