Re: [pim] [secdir] Secdir last call review ofdraft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-12

<zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> Mon, 03 February 2020 00:34 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8738912013A; Sun, 2 Feb 2020 16:34:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uswc6pA646Tg; Sun, 2 Feb 2020 16:34:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D61E312004A; Sun, 2 Feb 2020 16:34:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 249BAF8714B92B2A7C79; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 08:34:10 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp04.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.203]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 0130XuiQ092620; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 08:33:56 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 08:33:55 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 08:33:55 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc5e376a739618c902
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202002030833550333378@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <20200202160816.GK91553@kduck.mit.edu>
References: 158028589133.2819.6239221909447380902@ietfa.amsl.com, 20200202160816.GK91553@kduck.mit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
To: <kaduk@mit.edu>, <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
Cc: <last-call@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang.all@ietf.org>, <pim@ietf.org>, <secdir@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 0130XuiQ092620
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/cBfSyyGDDLHNHPLrznmI0uWGaSY>
Subject: Re: [pim] =?utf-8?q?=5Bsecdir=5D_Secdir_last_call_review_ofdraft-iet?= =?utf-8?q?f-pim-msdp-yang-12?=
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:34:17 -0000

Hi Ben, Vincent,






Thank you very much for your review!


Yes. This sentence means that all the configurable leaves in the model.



Should I delete this sentence to avoid misunderstanding?






Best regards,


Sandy









原始邮件



发件人:BenjaminKaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
收件人:Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr>fr>;
抄送人:last-call@ietf.org <last-call@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang.all@ietf.org <draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang.all@ietf.org>;pim@ietf.org <pim@ietf.org>;secdir@ietf.org <secdir@ietf.org>rg>;
日 期 :2020年02月03日 00:08
主 题 :Re: [pim] [secdir] Secdir last call review ofdraft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-12




Hi Vincent,

Thanks for doing the review!

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 12:18:11AM -0800, Vincent Roca via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Vincent Roca
> Review result: Has Nits
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Summary: Ready with nits
> 
> The security considerations section is globally well writen and addresses
> important topics. I don't have major comments.
> 
> Details:
> - it is said that "(i.e., config true, which is the default)".
>   I've searched in the YANG model and only found "config false" entries which
>   seems to contradict what is said in section 5.

I think the idea is that you never actually say "config true", and rather
just omit any 'config' statement to get the default (writeable) behavior.
So I think there are still writeable leaves in this module.

-Ben

> - Section 2.1 says: "This model can be used to configure and manage MSDP
> protocols." (with a final "s") which suggests there could be several MSDP
> protocols. I think it's a mistake.
> 
> Cheers,    Vincent
> 
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> secdir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim