Hi Rich, Thanks for the review. We have posted an updated version of the draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-08 to address your comments.
Thanks, - Xufeng > -----Original Message----- > From: Rich Salz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 2:00 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-07 > > Reviewer: Rich Salz > Review result: Ready > > 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"? [Xufeng] This section in the previous version used an older convention to describe the diagram syntax. Because of the new available draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02, we have updated this section to use the new convention. > > 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. [Xufeng] Added the sentence as suggested. > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
