[secdir] secdir re-review of draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-06

Tom Yu <tlyu@mit.edu> Mon, 02 May 2016 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <tlyu@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D1CF12D64A; Mon, 2 May 2016 15:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.217
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 VqWUZnHzJXaT; Mon, 2 May 2016 15:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu [18.7.68.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C56812D191; Mon, 2 May 2016 15:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 12074422-913ff7000000760a-82-5727d4310f12
Received: from mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.36]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 28.EC.30218.134D7275; Mon, 2 May 2016 18:26:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id u42MQvnN008011; Mon, 2 May 2016 18:26:57 -0400
Received: from localhost (sarnath.mit.edu [18.18.1.190]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tlyu@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id u42MQtFa016856; Mon, 2 May 2016 18:26:56 -0400
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@mit.edu>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library.all@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 18:26:55 -0400
Message-ID: <ldvzis8cd00.fsf@sarnath.mit.edu>
Lines: 10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrLIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nomt4RT3c4M8xK4v223+YLGb8mchs 8WHhQxYHZo8lS34yBTBGcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGX8Xn+TveAsc8WJhumsDYxfmboYOTkkBEwk Fl2/x9zFyMUhJNDGJPFjxzZWCGcDo8SMuS0sEM5rRom/GyezgLSwCUhLHL+8C6xdRCBSYt3H nawgtrCAvcS7+W8YQWwWAVWJlxeWMIPYvAK6EjNmPAPr5RHglPg09Qo7RFxQ4uTMJ2BxZgEt iRv/XjJNYOSZhSQ1C0lqASPTKkbZlNwq3dzEzJzi1GTd4uTEvLzUIl1TvdzMEr3UlNJNjOCQ cVHawTjxn9chRgEORiUeXo90tXAh1sSy4srcQ4ySHExKorxxK9XDhfiS8lMqMxKLM+KLSnNS iw8xSnAwK4nwXjoDlONNSaysSi3Kh0lJc7AoifMGRR4LExJITyxJzU5NLUgtgsnKcHAoSfD+ vwTUKFiUmp5akZaZU4KQZuLgBBnOAzR8CUgNb3FBYm5xZjpE/hSjLseCH7fXMgmx5OXnpUqJ 854FKRIAKcoozYObA451IcZ9rxjFgd4S5r0IUsUDTBNwk14BLWECWpK9XhVkSUkiQkqqgbFR 7ORT51kr4t4yTZ4tPjt7v07+a+btFf7GNR28dRM+eC+3FRfRcxV5YqH8PDXDe1X155RLGctz W0pWtProP9/tuNpt9n/d8m/K1brrWb/ts+4RbO68wH06myt+WefabKnbBQFhnAuCLlab35U1 d59TLq3Eve5LZr35fZ2cVX/sLQKirsx+osRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAOjsOArQAgAA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/Za2HEGJHXCG5WGy67OkAi4US6-M>
Subject: [secdir] secdir re-review of draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-06
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 22:27:01 -0000

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.

Summary: Ready

The current revision of this document adequately addresses the comments
I made during a prior review.