Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05

Russ, thanks for your review. I don’t think your major concern quite rises to the level of being DISCUSS-worthy, but I’ve flagged it in my No Objection ballot and would expect a response from the authors.

Alissa

> On Jan 20, 2018, at 6:36 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review result: Not Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review Date: 2018-01-20
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-01-31
> IESG Telechat date: 2018-02-08
> 
> Summary: Not Ready
> 
> Major Concerns:
> 
> Section 4 listed three data nodes that are sensitive or vulnerable:
>   -  /logical-network-elements/logical-network-element
>   -  /logical-network-elements/logical-network-element/managed
>   -  /if:interfaces/if:interface/bind-lne-name
> 
> All three of them deserve a bit more discussion, although the middle
> one is covered in much more detail than the other two.  If a bad actor
> gets "unauthorized access" is there something more specific about each
> of these that can be said?  The characterization of "network
> malfunctions, delivery of packets to inappropriate destinations, and
> other problems" seems very broad.  Consequences that are specific to
> these data nodes would be more helpful to the reader.
> 
> 
> Minor Concerns:
> 
> Section 1.1: Please update the first paragraph to reference RFC 8174
> in addition to RFC 2119, as follows: 
> 
>   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
>   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
>   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
>   capitals, as shown here.
> 
> 
> Nits:
> 
> Abstract: YANG appears in the title and the introduction.  So, I was a
> bit surprised that YANG did not appear anywhere in the Abstract.
> 
> This document seems to refer to itself as "RFC XXXX" and "RFC TBD".
> Please pick one and use it throughout the document.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art