Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-14
review-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-14-genart-lc-housley-2024-12-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2024-12-09
Requested 2024-11-25
Authors Mohamed Boucadair , Richard Roberts , Oscar Gonzalez de Dios , Samier Barguil , Bo Wu
I-D last updated 2024-12-02
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -04 by Martin Björklund (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -12 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Russ Housley (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Russ Housley
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/g-lSwcterZCECranK4oDlFMJnUQ
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 15)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2024-12-02
review-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-14-genart-lc-housley-2024-12-02-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-14
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2024-12-02
IETF LC End Date: 2024-12-09
IESG Telechat date: Unknown


Summary: Almost Ready


Major Concerns:  None


Minor Concerns:

Section 7:  The text says:

   ...  These protocols have to use a
   secure transport layer (e.g., SSH [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC
   [RFC9000]) and have to use mutual authentication.

I assume that NETCONF and RESTCONF REQUIRE a secure transport and mutual
authentication.  Is that correct?  If so, can this be written in a way
that makes it clear that these other protocols already impose these
requirements?


Nits:

IDnits points out some outdated references:

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of
     draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-17

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of
     draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-12

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-21) exists of
     draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-20

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of
     draft-ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue-10

IDnits also complains about a non-ASCII character.  This is not a
concern because it appears in a name (Björklund).