Thanks, Andy!

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Kathleen Moriarty
> <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your review, Stephen!
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Stephen Farrell
>> <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>> > Reviewer: Stephen Farrell
>> > Review result: Ready
>> >
>> >
>> > I reviewed the diff between -18 and RFC6087. [1]
>> >
>> >    [1]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc6087&url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18
>> >
>> > I assume the security ADs were involved already in discussion about
>> > the new security considerations template in 3.7.1 and the text there
>> > does seem fine to me, so I won't even nit-pick about it:-)
>>
>> Yes and I sent it to the SAAG list for review as well along with a
>> followup email on the security review process for YANG documents (a
>> link to the OPSdir page on that).  I don't think any feedback came
>> through as a result of the request, so we should be good with the
>> general considerations for a bit.
>>
>> >
>> > I do have some other nits to note though.
>> >
>> > - There are a number of URLs given for access to updated materials
>> > that use http schemed URLs and that do not use https schemed URLs.
>> > There was a recent IESG statement to the effect that those'd be better
>> > as https URLs. The first such example is in 3.1. In fact that URL is
>> > re-directed (for me) to https. I think a general pass to fix such URLs
>> > to use https wherever possible would be easy and better practice.
>> >
>
>
>
> no objection to changing the URLs to use https
>
>
>>
>> > - Some of the namespaces use http schemed URLs, for example in
>> > section 4.2. I don't know if people are expected to de-reference such
>> > URLs, but if they are then it'd be good to say if https is better to use
>> > or not. (I'd argue it is.) If those URLs are not expected to be
>> > de-referenced, then saying that would be good. (Not that it'd stop
>> > people de-referencing 'em so the change is better in any case;-)
>>
>
> no objection to changing the YANG namespace examples to something else
>
>>
>> I don't see any response on these questions on list and it would be
>> good to get an answer, so I'll include a link in my ballot in case the
>> authors are not seeing it for some reason.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kathleen
>>
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > S.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> Andy
>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to