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 21)
Type IETF 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 2026-07-01 (Latest revision 2026-06-16)
Completed reviews Secdir Telechat review of -18 by Watson Ladd (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -17 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -17 by Watson Ladd (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -17 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Yangdoctors IETF 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 IETF 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 21)
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