Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16

Chris Lonvick via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sat, 29 April 2023 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9CD3C14CE36; Sat, 29 Apr 2023 10:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Chris Lonvick via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 10.1.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <168279075688.50198.4125814977559954425@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Chris Lonvick <lonvick.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 10:52:36 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/DXPhjt0LpDOtwr6MJKbQ1XWyKQo>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 17:52:36 -0000

Reviewer: Chris Lonvick
Review result: Has Nits

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.  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.

First off, I am not a Yang doctor. The summary of the review is Ready with
Nits. I've looked at the reviews of other reviewers and see that they have
covered several details that should be addressed by the authors. I found no
nits or problems on my own.

The Security Considerations section appears to be appropriate and is well
written. I believe that once the authors have addressed the issues raised by
the other reviewers that the document will be ready.

Regards,
Chris