> On Dec 2, 2024, at 5:34 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Russ, > > Thanks for the review. > >> On Dec 2, 2024, at 2:08 PM, Russ Housley via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org >> <mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> 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
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
