Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05
Russ Housley <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sat, 20 January 2018 23:36 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B845C1270AC; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 15:36:38 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Russ Housley <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 15:36:38 -0800
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=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 <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.
- Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-m… Russ Housley
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Lou Berger