Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-24
review-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-24-yangdoctors-lc-bierman-2021-05-25-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-23 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 23 (document currently at 41) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | YANG Doctors (yangdoctors) | |
| Deadline | 2021-05-08 | |
| Requested | 2021-04-20 | |
| Requested by | Mahesh Jethanandani | |
| Authors | Kent Watsen | |
| I-D last updated | 2021-05-25 | |
| Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -03
by Andy Bierman
(diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -24 by Andy Bierman (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -25 by Watson Ladd (diff) |
|
| Comments |
This document was reviewed by a YANG doctor at revision -03. We are now at revision -23, and the document has changed substantially since then. Thus a request to review it again. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Andy Bierman |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server by YANG Doctors Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/Dx4jZAfW9XiiI4Vo7E0-xrGq2HM | |
| Reviewed revision | 24 (document currently at 41) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2021-05-25 |
review-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-24-yangdoctors-lc-bierman-2021-05-25-00
Comments: I am not commenting on the TLS 1.0 and 1.3 onging discussions. The WG decision does not impact the YANG module review. 1) Measuring Interoperability for groupings and identities [same comment for SSH and TLS drafts] These modules are intentionally abstract. There are no protocol-accessible objects defined at all. Interoperability is usually measured in the context of a specific protocol (e.g., NETCONF). There is an assumption that interoperability will be achieved by some other RFCs that will have "uses" statements to create protocol-accessible or otherwise implementable objects. There is also an assumption that the groupings will be used the same everywhere, and the only difference will be the path from root to the objects in these groupings. In fact, the "refine" statement allows each usage to be different. Perhaps the drafts should mention these interoperability issues. 2) mandatory choice of only optional-to-implement cases The choice /ietf-tls-client:client-identity/auth-type is mandatory but all cases have if-feature-stmts. Does draft mention 1 of the 4 features MUST be implemented?