Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-10
review-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-10-secdir-lc-takahashi-2021-02-05-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 17) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2021-02-12 | |
| Requested | 2021-01-29 | |
| Authors | Nan Wu , Dhruv Dhody , Ankit kumar Sinha , ANIL KUMAR S N , Yi Zhao | |
| I-D last updated | 2021-02-05 | |
| Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Early review of -03
by Andy Bierman
(diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -10 by Andy Bierman (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff) Genart Last Call review of -12 by Tim Evens (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Takeshi Takahashi |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/4_GvIl1dQ10mPPdo1yoQ4k8yg2w | |
| Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 17) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2021-02-05 |
review-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-10-secdir-lc-takahashi-2021-02-05-00
The security consideration section is written well. I have one minor comment. The security consideration section discusses the necessity of access control by referencing RFC 8341. The access control feature was also discussed in Section 5, but the section refers RFC 5905 and RFC 8519. Since they are both dealing with the necessity of access control, it would be nicer if the security consideration section discusses the need for access control with the same (at least one same) reference.