[CCAMP] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-17
Watson Ladd via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 26 February 2024 17:10 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A44C15199A; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 09:10:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Watson Ladd via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.6.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <170896742027.58906.12731500706967830981@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 09:10:20 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/35Eb2phB7T207LNcnj6HQX4lxPI>
Subject: [CCAMP] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-17
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:10:20 -0000
Reviewer: Watson Ladd Review result: Has Nits I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This document copy-pastes the security considerations from RFC 8795 and says that the augmentations have the security properties inherited from where they are attached. However it isn't clear if this is the only way in which fields defined here are sensitive. I think some rewording may be in order to clarify. Otherwise I think this document is a straightforward augmentation of a YANG model. Sincerely, Watson Ladd
- [CCAMP] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-cca… Watson Ladd via Datatracker
- [CCAMP] 回复: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf… Zhenghaomian
- Re: [CCAMP] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf… Watson Ladd