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 revision | No specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2017-12-12 | |
| Requested | 2017-11-28 | |
| Authors | Xufeng Liu , Athanasios Kyparlis , Ravi Parikh , Acee Lindem , Mingui Zhang | |
| I-D last updated | 2017-12-05 | |
| Completed 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) Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Rich Salz (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Zitao Wang (diff) Genart Telechat review of -08 by Linda Dunbar (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Rich Salz |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 11) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2017-12-05 |
review-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-07-secdir-lc-salz-2017-12-05-00
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.