[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
- [netconf] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-n… Daniel Migault via Datatracker