[netconf] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-37

Daniel Migault via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 25 September 2024 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from [10.244.2.86] (unknown [104.131.183.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEA2AC15199D; Wed, 25 Sep 2024 08:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Daniel Migault via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.25.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <172727786560.101503.4791040466782513485@dt-datatracker-6c75f7dfff-hrjh6>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 08:24:25 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: NGHDOM7CWMQC6FM3O4MOQLDFDCMXPSXP
X-Message-ID-Hash: NGHDOM7CWMQC6FM3O4MOQLDFDCMXPSXP
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-netconf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Reply-To: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>
Subject: [netconf] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-37
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/9pek5KeNYh7BLipq2qaz2EKOnsg>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:netconf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:netconf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:netconf-leave@ietf.org>

Reviewer: Daniel Migault
Review result: Ready

Hi, 

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Document
editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
comments.

The use of security protocols is left to specific YANG modules, so the security 
considerations remain quite generic and maybe the client and server module 
security consideration might be even grouped in a single section. 

yours, 
Daniel