Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from [10.244.6.11] (unknown [4.156.85.76])
	by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86D2EA83C379;
	Thu, 15 Jan 2026 11:31:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Rich Salz via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.55.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: 
 <176850546532.1483584.9460969881715755010@dt-datatracker-5656579b89-r5kdq>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 11:31:05 -0800
Message-ID-Hash: H3PWSFUAM6CVMIDMRCWAK2IARP5O2HWX
X-Message-ID-Hash: H3PWSFUAM6CVMIDMRCWAK2IARP5O2HWX
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency;
 loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-secdir.ietf.org-0;
 nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size;
 news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-augmentedby.all@ietf.org,
 last-call@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Reply-To: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.com>
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bsecdir=5D_draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-augmentedby-14_ietf_l?=
	=?utf-8?q?ast_call_Secdir_review?=
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/PD1XvxKszxURwNu09RS09Siio3c>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:secdir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:secdir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:secdir-leave@ietf.org>

Document: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-augmentedby
Title: Augmented-by Addition to the YANG Library
Reviewer: Rich Salz
Review result: Has Nits

Sec 1, para 2. "augment" and "deviations" should be in italics; let the RPC
deal with that. Sec 1, para 4. You must be very proud of that sentence :) Sec
1, para 5. "require now" --> "are now required" or, better, "MUST now be"

Sec 1.2, why single quotes on NDMA? And it *is* the title, not *defined as the*
title.

Sec 2, the motivation is clear.

Sec 3, I like the details of how this solved real problems/complications.

Sec 4.2.1, you could delete the first sentence given the title says the same
thing.

Sec 4.2.2, not sure why we see CODE BEGIN/CODE ENDS markers, leave for the RPC
to fix. Would like to see a blank space between the modules in the code
fragment.

Sec 7. "There are no writable" seems redundant given the next sentence. I would
not split the paragraph at "Specifically, the following ..."



