Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05

Russ Housley <> Sat, 20 January 2018 23:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B845C1270AC; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 15:36:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Russ Housley <>
To: <>
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.69.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 15:36:38 -0800
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 23:36:39 -0000

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

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",
   "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.


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.