Ketan,
On 5/27/26 04:32, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Can you please check question #16 and let me know your views from the
authors' perspective? Even though the question was directed to the AD, I
would like to understand the reasons (if any) for deviating from the
authors' perspective.
Deviations are likely due to the thrash in this cluster of documents as
to what lived in which document rather than by intention.
On 5/22/26 16:08, [email protected] wrote:
16) <!--[rfced] *AD, we note that the YANG Security Considerations
(Section 15.2 in this document) varies from the template
in Section 3.7.1 of RFC 9907. We updated the first
three paragraphs in this document to match the template. Please
review and also provide guidance for the following questions:
a) Paragraph 4 from the template is missing in this document. Should
"There are no particularly sensitive writable data nodes." be included
in this document to address this?
This is correct.
b) Paragraph 5 from the template is missing in this document. Should
"There are no particularly sensitive readable data nodes." be included
in this document to address this?
This is correct.
c) Paragraph 6 from the template is missing in this document. Should
"There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations." be
included in this document to address this?
This is correct.
d) Paragraph 4 in this document almost matches paragraph 8 in the
template (which begins with "The YANG module defines a set of
identities, types, and groupings."). Note that "types" and "groupings"
haven been omitted. Please let us know if this is okay or if any
updates are needed for consistency with the template.
The text contained in the document best reflects the nature of the
intention here.
-- Jeff
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
