Russ, thanks for your review. I don’t think your major concern quite rises to the level of being DISCUSS-worthy, but I’ve flagged it in my No Objection ballot and would expect a response from the authors.
Alissa > On Jan 20, 2018, at 6:36 PM, Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote: > > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review result: Not Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05 > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review Date: 2018-01-20 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-01-31 > IESG Telechat date: 2018-02-08 > > Summary: Not Ready > > Major Concerns: > > Section 4 listed three data nodes that are sensitive or vulnerable: > - /logical-network-elements/logical-network-element > - /logical-network-elements/logical-network-element/managed > - /if:interfaces/if:interface/bind-lne-name > > All three of them deserve a bit more discussion, although the middle > one is covered in much more detail than the other two. If a bad actor > gets "unauthorized access" is there something more specific about each > of these that can be said? The characterization of "network > malfunctions, delivery of packets to inappropriate destinations, and > other problems" seems very broad. Consequences that are specific to > these data nodes would be more helpful to the reader. > > > Minor Concerns: > > Section 1.1: Please update the first paragraph to reference RFC 8174 > in addition to RFC 2119, as follows: > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and > "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP > 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all > capitals, as shown here. > > > Nits: > > Abstract: YANG appears in the title and the introduction. So, I was a > bit surprised that YANG did not appear anywhere in the Abstract. > > This document seems to refer to itself as "RFC XXXX" and "RFC TBD". > Please pick one and use it throughout the document. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > gen-...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list email@example.com https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg