From: tirumal reddy <kond...@gmail.com> Sent: 13 October 2022 07:57 Thanks Tom for the review. Yes, we will fix the references identified by Tom.
<tp> -09 looks better. I still see a mix of TLS-1.2 and TLS-1-2; I am not sure if there is a rationale for that. I prefer the former but that mix of characters may confuse others. I see a number of editorial issues - I do not know if you want to look at those now or leave them to Last Call. One slightly technical one is that it is very rare to start a YANG prefix with ietf as the IANA webpages show - filename, MUST, prefix SHOULD NOT IMHO. Thus acl has a prefix of acl so I would see the augment as acl-tls and not ietf-acl-tls; but mud is ietf-mud (unfortunately:-( so the augment is perhaps better as ietf-mud-tls. Tom Petch Cheers, -Tiru On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 at 18:37, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkh...@sit.fraunhofer.de<mailto:henk.birkh...@sit.fraunhofer.de>> wrote: Hi Tom, would it be possible for you to augment your first comment with change proposals, if possible? @authors: it seems to me that the references issues Tom now provided in specific detail could be resolved in this thread in a timely manner. Is that correct? Viele GrΓΌΓe, Henk On 12.10.22 13:39, tom petch wrote: > From: OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org>> on > behalf of Henk Birkholz > <henk.birkh...@sit.fraunhofer.de<mailto:henk.birkh...@sit.fraunhofer.de>> > Sent: 06 October 2022 13:26 > > Dear authors and contributors, > > thank you for your hard work. As it seems that all existing issues have > been resolve, we'll move the I-D to write-up in the datatracker. > > Also, thanks Thomas Fossati for stepping up as shepherd! > > <tp> > My main comment on this remains the mix of two different YANG modules with > different life cycles; I expect that l will comment again on the Last Call > list to give this issue more exposure. > > Of lesser import, I cannot make sense of the references. > I see [RFC5246] which normally means that a reference has been created. Not > here, so there would seem to have been some chicanery involved, that this I-D > has not been produced by the usual IETF tools. > > I also see RFC5869, RFC6346, RFC8447 which seem absent from the I-D > References. > > dtls13 is now an RFC. > > What is the difference between > draft-ietf-tls-dtls13: > and > "RFC DDDD: Datagram Transport Layer Security 1.3"; > ? > How do I find > "RFC CCCC: Common YANG Data Types for Cryptography"; > or > "RFC IIII: Common YANG Data Types for Hash algorithms"; ? > > Does tls-1-2 mean the same as tls-1.2? And is this the same as that which > the Netconf WG refers to as tls12? > > Tom Petch > > > For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > > Henk > > > On 29.09.22 10:27, Henk Birkholz wrote: >> Dear OPSAWG members, >> >> this email concludes the first WGLC call for >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07.html. >> >> A few comments where raised. Authors/editors, please go ahead and >> address these as discussed on the list. >> >> >> For the OPSAWG co-chairs, >> >> Henk >> >> On 14.09.22 16:07, Henk Birkholz wrote: >>> Dear OPSAWG members, >>> >>> this email starts a two week period for a Working Group Last Call of >>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07.html >>> >>> ending on Thursday, September 28th. >>> >>> The authors believe the Internet-Draft is ready for a WGLC and the >>> chairs agree. The draft has been discussed visibly at IETF 114 and >>> review feedback has been incorporated in -07. >>> >>> Please send your comments to the list and your assessment of whether >>> or not it is ready to proceed to publication before September 28th. >>> >>> >>> For the OPSAWG co-chairs, >>> >>> Henk >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSAWG mailing list >> OPSAWG@ietf.org<mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org<mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
