On 4/25/17, 10:38 AM, "Ben Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:12 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Ben, >> >> On 4/24/17, 10:15 PM, "Ben Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain-20: No Objection >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to >>>https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Just a couple of editorial comments: >>> >>> -2.2: "This MAY be accomplished by accepting all the keys that have a >>> valid accept lifetime and sending the key with the most recent send >>> lifetime." >>> As written, that MAY sounds like a statement of fact rather than a >>> normative requirement. If it's intended as normative, please consider >>> restating in terms of actual procedure (e.g. "The receiver MAY accept >>> ...") >> >> I could either restate it or simply replace the “MAY” with “can”. Since >> whether or not graceful key roll-over can be accomplished with >>key-chains >> has been an area of operator confusion as well as vendors not >>implementing >> it properly for all applications, I’m going to attempt the former. >> >> The receiver MAY accept all the keys that have a valid accept >> lifetime and then MAY send the key with the most recent send >> lifetime to perform graceful key rollover. > >That works for me, except maybe “receiver” doesn’t make as much sense if >we are talking about both accepting and sending. To achieve graceful key rollover, the receiver MAY accept all the keys that have a valid accept lifetime and the sender MAY send the key with the most recent send lifetime. > >> >>> >>> -3, first paragraph: "Is a "key chain key" a key in the keychain, or >>> something else? (maybe a key _for_ the keychain)? >> >> This is one key from a key chain. In the ietf-key-chain model, we used >>to >> call these key-entry(s) rather than key(s). However, this was simplified >> based on reviews. I believe it was Martin Bjorklund who suggested just >> calling them keys. If you read the entire paragraph, I believe the >>context >> is clear. > >From the context, I guessed we were likely talking about a key in the key >chain. But I had to stop and think about it. Maybe “member of the >keychain”? The reason I use “key” is that is what the list data node is referred to as. The alternative would be to use “key list element” so it is clear that the “Model Design” section is referring to this data node in the model. Of course, I think this is clear without this. Thanks, Acee > >> >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >>> >> > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
