Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain-02
review-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain-02-rtgdir-early-robles-2016-09-01-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 24) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2016-09-01 | |
Requested | 2016-08-15 | |
Authors | Acee Lindem , Yingzhen Qu , Derek M. Yeung , Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang | |
I-D last updated | 2016-09-01 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -02
by Ines Robles
(diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -13 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff) Genart Last Call review of -17 by Matthew A. Miller (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -17 by Vincent Roca (diff) Genart Telechat review of -20 by Matthew A. Miller (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Ines Robles |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 24) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2016-09-01 |
review-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain-02-rtgdir-early-robles-2016-09-01-00
Hi, Thank you for this work. I find the document readable and understandable. Some comments: Abstract: - In this sentence "A key chain is... algorithm", I would add "A key chain is... algorithm (authentication or encryption)". Section 1. Introduction: I would like to have an example on this statement: " In some applications, the protocols do not use the key chain element key directly, but rather a key derivation function is used to derive a short-lived key from the key chain element key. e.g...." --> maybe draft-bhatia-karp-short-lived-keys-00? Section 1.1- -I would add here the reference to RFC 6020, something like: "The terminology for describing YANG data models is found in [RFC6020]. ... 1.1.1. Tree Diagrams A simplified graphical representation of the data model is used in the YANG modules specified in this document. The meaning of the symbols in these diagrams is as follows: Brackets "[" and "]" enclose list keys. Abbreviations before data node names: "rw" means configuration data (read-write) and "ro" state data (read-only). Symbols after data node names: "?" means an optional node, "!" means a presence container, and "*" denotes a list and leaf-list. Parentheses enclose choice and case nodes, and case nodes are also marked with a colon (":"). Ellipsis ("...") stands for contents of subtrees that are not shown." source of the text: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanderstok-roll-mpl-yang-01 - even when it is pretty obvious, I would add a reference to the key definition [RFC4949 - page 171] Section 5: It is empty, you mention some related work in section 2, but maybe you could add in here a tree diagram such as the one showed in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-server-model-09#section-3 Section 7 -For the XML-REGISTRY I would add a table with suggested values for the respective columns of ns registry: ID, URI, Filename, Reference [ http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/xml-registry.xhtml#ns ] -For YANG Module Names registry, you have name, namespace, prefix and reference, only there is a column missing which is module, [ http://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml#yang-parameters-1 ] - I would add an informative reference to RFC5226. "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" Additional questions: - Should RFC 6518 be mentioned in this document? like the Cryptographic Keys Life Cycle? - What about ECC? Should it be included or it is not-related/out-of-scope? Thank you, Ines.