Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-07
review-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-07-secdir-lc-salz-2017-12-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2017-12-12
Requested 2017-11-28
Other Reviews Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Henning Rogge (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -01 by Radek Krejčí (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Zitao Wang (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Rich Salz
Review review-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-07-secdir-lc-salz-2017-12-05
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/v0USc-248dbXhtF7LQPYxX0MA6Q
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 09)
Review result Ready
Draft last updated 2017-12-05
Review completed: 2017-12-05

Review
review-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-07-secdir-lc-salz-2017-12-05

I did this review for the Security Directorate (SECDIR) to help the Security AD's.

This document is ready. 

Section 1.2 gives an augmented diagram syntax; is that common? Should it be added to "yang proper"?

The security considerations is short and to the point. This document describes a data model, so the security considerations properly point call out requirements on any transport mechanism used.  Calling out particularly vulnerable nodes is good practice. Perhaps add a sentence saying that "implemented should review all the nodes for security concerns" might be useful.