Looks good to me thanks!
On 12/16/17, 3:10 AM, "Xufeng Liu" <[email protected]> wrote:
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
