AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain-15

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 16 March 2017 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
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 C306F129AD0; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 jaup0uY2C7l2; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22b.google.com (mail-wr0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0C9C129AC6; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id l37so41098430wrc.1; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xKm4voVt5gT0QMgv9F1RGbQrq4FwU+2h78rzf7wtxbo=; b=Xb2dtVU2EnN0Ds7MvxqJZJF0SE/M54iuC1OgWFEfvnhn7WOIV6TXaZp7+u/opbC9mI UdFUescF19duV0R5/ScAQOH5l55dViEeUag8JZmX1id+/5ZiJ3Ndg+nmdhQGBeL5i9c+ mye4RONTum9Dae64kudFvABqgVn4itfGCqE5pTv38ZJVflsNpNPUsrHDxP6hq368weuH 6yvbS/HirH/vNyOrpUoqG8VoQ8r5b5Z41X1aNWwQ/GDJdySSzVxj36iTQ9zfKJ118doi Zg/5PRheWPCTRSQt62UOGyC/2ExOSCIUDcnKfVrDJ4mF6In5Q3QSf9azBAWNcz+yGHBa ihdQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xKm4voVt5gT0QMgv9F1RGbQrq4FwU+2h78rzf7wtxbo=; b=Mb5qZ+IpHEkdItKnzJBKSGKzVFH+AX8Ct3PNCxwGL0fupeK3Zn30twxAmttBgnrNtu URfrAYvE+YRm3x8mvDGWAjgVS4HXmANn9uVIhf1A/AAh7Nw0dLbkOjEVCWn1z57D2yzr dm1nZB5rjtu8mUGYj9Hn9Cv4P1iUbVqKn/9WYFcgTRhyq4UtbJVJZg73aHg6gcDY03X+ 1OHVgUttGk9ketK89XXw/p5CygyAqCrlPaMdDE6np7106myToGJQxVyoePw3jH/SohRx dMar99vhq2xvIp+09hnaranl5oxRc74OuT0PBQh6pOruU720aUlWyfT+HvICBrZ2zxiZ civQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2QvTAoudrEi4onjcN4fIY/0mu8uHMMXOo8hXO3dtYjp9rzlb9zA5r+g2efJn7CoaXzK4+WslQZgkGMtA==
X-Received: by 10.223.155.193 with SMTP id e1mr10313258wrc.86.1489701381034; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.145.69 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:56:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdgpeoOPFBz+4vq_BKGvYyLGWtD1vPycpqxF+zwvTEyqw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain-15
To: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1b31f2a357d7054ae021e9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/zVkNFBYlkwz16r3BzY3l-0YFYYE>
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, 16 Mar 2017 21:56:27 -0000

As is customary, I have done my AD review
of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain-15.
First, I would like to thank the many authors - Acee, Yingzhen, Derek,
Ing-Wher,
Jeffrey, and Yi - for their work on this well-written document.

Although I have requested a 3 week IETF Last Call, I have two matters that
do need
to be resolved before this is placed on an IESG telechat.

First, there are 6 authors.  Please either reduce it to the standard 5
author limit or send me, the WG chairs, and shepherd a clear explanation of
the contributions and why that author limit should not be respected in this
case.

Second, the security considerations section should be updated to reflect
the new general YANG security considerations that also mentions restconf.

Thank you for your hard work on this,
Alia