Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netconf-yp-transport-capabilities-05
review-ietf-netconf-yp-transport-capabilities-05-yangdoctors-lc-lindblad-2025-10-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netconf-yp-transport-capabilities
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2025-10-18
Requested 2025-10-04
Requested by Mahesh Jethanandani
Authors Qin Wu , Qiufang Ma , Alex Huang Feng , Thomas Graf
I-D last updated 2025-10-04 (Latest revision 2025-06-16)
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -01 by Jan Lindblad (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -03 by Xiao Min (diff)
Yangdoctors IETF Last Call review of -05 by Jan Lindblad
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -05 by Xiao Min
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -05 by Tommy Pauly
Comments
Please assign the YANG doctors review to Jan, who did an Early review also.
Assignment Reviewer Jan Lindblad
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-netconf-yp-transport-capabilities by YANG Doctors Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/dCyouxlNLZAf9zhC3t3HwrNj6t0
Reviewed revision 05
Result Ready
Completed 2025-10-22
review-ietf-netconf-yp-transport-capabilities-05-yangdoctors-lc-lindblad-2025-10-22-00
This is my YANG Doctor last call review of
draft-ietf-netconf-yp-transport-capabilities-05. I think this tiny module is
Ready.

The current model has one small limitation, but that is probably a conscious
choice, and may never become a real world problem. I will mention it anyway
just to make sure all involved are aware.

The transport-capability list has a single key transport-protocol. This means
only a single capability listing for each transport protocol is possible.

         list transport-capability {
           key "transport-protocol";

In this version of the module, the body of the list contains leaf-lists with
the identities of the security protocol and encoding format (and any future
augmentations):

...
           leaf-list security-protocol {
             type union {
               type identityref {
                 base security-protocol;
               }
               type identityref {
                 base tlscmn:tls-version-base;
               }
             }
...
           }
           leaf-list encoding-format {
             type identityref {
               base sn:encoding;
             }

This implies that a server has to support all combinations of listed
security-protocols and encoding formats (and any augmented properties) for each
transport protocol. This is likely the case for most (or all?) implementations.
This model does not make it possible to express for, example, that the server
supports http with tls12 with json and tls13 with json or cbor. If this kind of
swiss-cheese matrix could ever appear in an implementation, the current model
cannot express it.

Best Regards,
/jan