Hi Martin,
On 8/6/18, 2:51 PM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Bjorklund"
<netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of m...@tail-f.com> wrote:
Hi,
Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Shawn Emery reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-10 and made this
> editorial comment:
>
> OLD:
>
> These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
>
> NEW:
>
> The following should be considered for subtrees/data nodes and their
> corresponding sensitivity/vulnerability:
>
> However, the OLD fomulation comes from RFC 6087, so perhaps this change
> should be applied in draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis in the first
> place. The NEW formulation indeed looks better to me.
What is the WG's opinion on this proposed text change? 6087bis is in
AUTH48 so if it needs to be changed it must happen now.
Most of the existing YANG model security considerations are written a list of
data nodes/subtrees and their corresponding sensitivity/vulnerability. So, if
the change is accepted, new drafts would need to be written as a list of
sensitivities/vulnerabilities with the data nodes and subtrees to which they
apply.
Thanks,
Acee
Of course, we can update
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines even when
6087bis has been published.
If we don't want to update the template, I don't think we should
update the schema mount draft either.
/martin
>
> Lada
>
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka
> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
