Subject: [Anima] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:56:17 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-28: Discuss

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-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Apologies for the multiple emails, I failed to realize there was a new Gen-ART
review for this document. The follow-up from the Gen-ART review seems to
indicate that a YANG doctor review of this document is needed and/or that the
YANG issues raised by Tom Petch need fixing. Is there a plan to get either of
those done?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my original DISCUSS points.

Please respond to the full Gen-ART review.

Original COMMENT below.

------

I think this document would benefit from two concise lists, with notes about
which items in each list are defined in this document and which ones are not
defined: (1) what is operationally required of a manufacturer to support BRSKI,
and (2) what is operationally required of a domain owner to support BRSKI.

= Section 2.3.1 =

What precisely is meant by "TPM identification"? Could a citation be provided?

= Section 10.1 =

"The domain can maintain some privacy since it has not necessarily been
   authenticated and is not authoritatively bound to the supply chain."

What does this mean? That the domain can expect the manufacturer not to trust
the domainID because it hasn't been authenticated?

= Section 10.2 =

"The above situation is to be distinguished from a residential/
   individual person who registers a device from a manufacturer: that an
   enterprise/ISP purchases routing products is hardly worth mentioning.
   Deviations would, however, be notable."

What does the last sentence mean?

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:51:17 +0200

> YANG issues raised by Tom Petch need fixing. Is there a plan to get either of

I'm working on those fixes today.
Also at RIPE79, and have two more conference calls, so I don't think I'll get
it done before your call tomorrow, but it could happen :-)

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-