Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-09: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to Alexey Melnikov for the SECDIR review. ** Section 4. “differences” bullet. Per “… defined in RFC8072”, please make “RFC8072” an reference. ** Section 6. Please review Alexey’s feedback on providing an empty line between the HTTP header and playload. ** Section 6. “same request in RESTCONF (using JSON format)”. Missing “:” making the JSON invalid. OLD { "ietf-nmda-compare:input" { NEW { "ietf-nmda-compare:input": { ** Section 9. The primary new security issue is definitely the possibility of a denial of service as is documented. I’m not sure what assumption are being made about the datastores -- would it be possible that a user doesn’t have read access to either the source and target of the comparison, but would be able to invoke the RPC? If so, this might leak configuration information. _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
