[Last-Call] Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-14

[Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 2, 2024, at 5:34 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Russ,

Thanks for the review.

On Dec 2, 2024, at 2:08 PM, Russ Housley via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review result: Almost 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
<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-14
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2024-12-02
IETF LC End Date: 2024-12-09
IESG Telechat date: Unknown


Summary: Almost Ready


Major Concerns:  None


Minor Concerns:

Section 7:  The text says:

  ...  These protocols have to use a
  secure transport layer (e.g., SSH [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC
  [RFC9000]) and have to use mutual authentication.

I assume that NETCONF and RESTCONF REQUIRE a secure transport and mutual
authentication.  Is that correct?  If so, can this be written in a way
that makes it clear that these other protocols already impose these
requirements?

Yes, NETCONF and RESTCONF require a secure transport, which are satisfied by NETCONF using SSH, and RESTCONF using TLS/QUIC. Not sure of the statement “these other protocols already impose those requirements”. Can you clarify?

I think it would be more clear to say something like:

  ...  NETCONF and RESTCONF require the use a

  secure transport layer such as SSH [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], or QUIC

  [RFC9000].  NETCONF and RESTCONFalso require mutual authentication.

Russ

-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx