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

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 08 February 2018 13:36 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B396312D95E; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 05:36:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=oIqGqtu5; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=b1GCs7c0
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 rajkKmlb5oEa; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 05:36:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAD3012D957; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 05:36:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6FC20DAD; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:36:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 08 Feb 2018 08:36:26 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=zvzLOr2lHEw6jyDuk7Z1oRX+daMoB 5FcXwYIdjwte9Y=; b=oIqGqtu5/gcPoQMU7RgoRq3bGBGevWh3vQYhR2hL4MBeG 0Q5/iww7kOOz2bRqty/E/7YmqdTCUKpPjbdg/YJMCH1+rNSB0fBcpu3zAb3VRP1R pc0HoiVAViETKwO/BilNaxU8wVVaaYIJL+GOHhXNCN9OOFYT6aXIPcURvXeaG5Sn TrxXuFs7JnLg4JgRQxjQJsgCnewutZ7fEjO01BCreAdfD/cS92+a5IE1/dgUkV1i QiXrrxUQLGMBc5v7/Dhpd7lzJyaKx5GzxTDfqMq82rKtyxzl7Y3KaYsJwBqiV1QB QRnFzD9b1phACm+PaNUHMZiCmaNvVHeMNQ6Fgdgmw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=zvzLOr 2lHEw6jyDuk7Z1oRX+daMoB5FcXwYIdjwte9Y=; b=b1GCs7c0Zg4w0oscUynoVu 93UlUCKaidn0SFIIMv5gCddZdLndlAXifDs4aLtiW+xVGKz+N6LU3m1Eteovg8zV JXmZf9NpmIWIlE6C1pAQzN7yCGMQxAciMDz261/o/dzRUTAUgK3SXcEmzbKpTTVU jjUmBvIJlI0fygb/Gny4XoVFcQ31j1aHrdjnF6cGJJmnYxgiL+THTPHBtq/wocpD 4p316RNz03+cONUVVYsS8NyW14+hZqZNxsuWd3mGcTEMh6vcGqw7l6nHoY08UDBC VX+PX2MSeoM4dq3q0/iqjpPcdnJg662XNqwnZdW52Zij0lVxVLtAMut7cvJRnDFA ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:WVJ8WuxnNBT8kn-y48LKEuF5PGPJnIDWG5Inq1ey3sTxn3MxNig19g>
Received: from [10.19.234.244] (unknown [128.107.241.174]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0BCAA240DB; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:36:24 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <151649139871.3209.16979766632857661358@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:36:25 -0500
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model.all@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F55482F0-1612-429E-96E2-0A4A257204EA@cooperw.in>
References: <151649139871.3209.16979766632857661358@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/YZ9TfTe6cGeI8Ol3K9s0WaSCgdU>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 13:36:29 -0000

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