[Last-Call] 回复: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-17

Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian@huawei.com> Fri, 19 April 2024 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <zhenghaomian@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48376C14CF12; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AljYTTggKLHb; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7041C14F6B2; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4VLZfP20fVz6JBHT; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 21:06:37 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml100001.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.160.183]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB3E3140B73; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 21:08:42 +0800 (CST)
Received: from canpemm100010.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.38) by lhrpeml100001.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.183) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:08:41 +0100
Received: from canpemm500009.china.huawei.com (7.192.105.203) by canpemm100010.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 21:08:39 +0800
Received: from canpemm500009.china.huawei.com ([7.192.105.203]) by canpemm500009.china.huawei.com ([7.192.105.203]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.035; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 21:08:39 +0800
From: Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian@huawei.com>
To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
CC: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-17
Thread-Index: AQHaaNa06Ube7V6nIkKC+bHytSFyrbFv40Xw
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:08:39 +0000
Message-ID: <acfd807665f849e79b9ebdffbb395738@huawei.com>
References: <170896742027.58906.12731500706967830981@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <170896742027.58906.12731500706967830981@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.158.149]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/JMQ9q64lcG0Pzjho7otLu009cjQ>
Subject: [Last-Call] 回复: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-17
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:08:50 -0000

Dear Watson, 

Thanks for the review and good suggestion. You are correct that we inherit some security sensitivity during the augmentation process, so we have clarified the document security text in the -18 version. We have also underlined that network topology may be considered confidential in some scenarios, and access should be carefully managed. 

Thanks. 

Best wishes,
Haomian (on behalf of authors & contributors)

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Watson Ladd via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 
发送时间: 2024年2月27日 1:10
收件人: secdir@ietf.org
抄送: ccamp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org
主题: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-17

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