Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-17
review-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-17-secdir-lc-ladd-2024-02-26-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 18) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2024-03-01 | |
Requested | 2024-02-16 | |
Authors | Haomian Zheng , Italo Busi , Xufeng Liu , Sergio Belotti , Oscar Gonzalez de Dios | |
I-D last updated | 2024-02-26 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Telechat review of -18
by Watson Ladd
Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Dan Romascanu (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -17 by Watson Ladd (diff) Genart Last Call review of -17 by Stewart Bryant (diff) Yangdoctors Last Call review of -11 by Radek Krejčí (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -16 by Michael Richardson (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Watson Ladd |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/VAEAXiOxBXrnzCkz-7jTvKmoDyU | |
Reviewed revision | 17 (document currently at 18) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2024-02-26 |
review-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-17-secdir-lc-ladd-2024-02-26-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This document copy-pastes the security considerations from RFC 8795 and says that the augmentations have the security properties inherited from where they are attached. However it isn't clear if this is the only way in which fields defined here are sensitive. I think some rewording may be in order to clarify. Otherwise I think this document is a straightforward augmentation of a YANG model. Sincerely, Watson Ladd