Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-04
review-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-04-secdir-lc-harkins-2018-07-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2018-07-09
Requested 2018-06-25
Authors Martin Björklund , Jürgen Schönwälder , Philip A. Shafer , Kent Watsen , Robert Wilton
I-D last updated 2018-07-05
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Dan Harkins (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Russ Housley (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -05 by Linda Dunbar
Assignment Reviewer Dan Harkins
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 05)
Result Has nits
Completed 2018-07-05
review-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-04-secdir-lc-harkins-2018-07-05-00
   Hello,

   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.

   The summary of the review is "Ready with nits".

   This draft defines two new capability identifier URNs for use in
the RESTCONF protocol and also some new behavioral requirements on
servers implementing it. My nit is on that last bit. In sections
3.2.1 and 3.2.2 present the new query parameters and say that they
are "optional to support" and then go on saying what behavior is
needed if it is supported. I think those need to be changed to be
RFC 2119 words, either SHOULD or MAY depending on the reasons that
might exist for not implementing them (basically conform to what
the words mean in RFC 2119).

   Other than that, the draft is pretty simple and straightforward.
The security considerations are basically a punt but given the
nature of this draft that's probably fine.

   regards,

   Dan.