Re: [netmod] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your review, Stephen!

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Reviewer: Stephen Farrell
> Review result: Ready
>
>
> I reviewed the diff between -18 and RFC6087. [1]
>
>    [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc6087&url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18
>
> I assume the security ADs were involved already in discussion about
> the new security considerations template in 3.7.1 and the text there
> does seem fine to me, so I won't even nit-pick about it:-)

Yes and I sent it to the SAAG list for review as well along with a
followup email on the security review process for YANG documents (a
link to the OPSdir page on that).  I don't think any feedback came
through as a result of the request, so we should be good with the
general considerations for a bit.

>
> I do have some other nits to note though.
>
> - There are a number of URLs given for access to updated materials
> that use http schemed URLs and that do not use https schemed URLs.
> There was a recent IESG statement to the effect that those'd be better
> as https URLs. The first such example is in 3.1. In fact that URL is
> re-directed (for me) to https. I think a general pass to fix such URLs
> to use https wherever possible would be easy and better practice.
>
> - Some of the namespaces use http schemed URLs, for example in
> section 4.2. I don't know if people are expected to de-reference such
> URLs, but if they are then it'd be good to say if https is better to use
> or not. (I'd argue it is.) If those URLs are not expected to be
> de-referenced, then saying that would be good. (Not that it'd stop
> people de-referencing 'em so the change is better in any case;-)

I don't see any response on these questions on list and it would be
good to get an answer, so I'll include a link in my ballot in case the
authors are not seeing it for some reason.

Thanks,
Kathleen

>
> Cheers,
> S.
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen