Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-04

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:32:35AM -0700, Daniel Harkins wrote:
> 
>   Hello,
> 
>   I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
> security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
> these comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
>   The summary of the review is "Ready with nits".
> 
>   This draft defines two new capability identifier URNs for use in
> the RESTCONF protocol and also some new behavioral requirements on
> servers implementing it. My nit is on that last bit. In sections
> 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 present the new query parameters and say that they
> are "optional to support" and then go on saying what behavior is
> needed if it is supported. I think those need to be changed to be
> RFC 2119 words, either SHOULD or MAY depending on the reasons that
> might exist for not implementing them (basically conform to what
> the words mean in RFC 2119).
>

I am not sure where exactly we are asked to use SHOULD and MAY and why
that would be necessary. Note that we follow the wordings in RFC 8040
(search for optional), which this document updates.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>