Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-07

"Bert (IETF) Wijnen" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> Mon, 21 February 2011 08:20 UTC

Return-Path: <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30CCE3A6FBE; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:20:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.479
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0hwjDhXErqVf; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:610:240:11::c100:1341]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 534FF3A6F84; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ayeaye.ripe.net ([193.0.23.5]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <bertietf@bwijnen.net>) id 1PrR0u-0006lp-NX; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:21:02 +0100
Received: from dog.ripe.net ([193.0.1.217] helo=guest184.guestnet.ripe.net) by ayeaye.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <bertietf@bwijnen.net>) id 1PrR0u-0006Mv-Km; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:21:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4D62206E.2030909@bwijnen.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:21:02 +0100
From: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tina Tsou <tena@huawei.com>
References: <00dc01cbc734$9ab8cbe0$d02a63a0$@com>
In-Reply-To: <00dc01cbc734$9ab8cbe0$d02a63a0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: --
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -2.9 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000]
X-RIPE-Signature: 86ab03e524994f79ca2c75a176445dd4071e60cfdd6c027100037708add5603a
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, "Ersue, Mehmet \(NSN - DE/Munich\)" <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com>, draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis@tools.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-07
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 21 Feb 2011 08:20:31 -0000

Revision 9 is out and tried to address IETF LC comments

Here is the diff between the rev you reviewed and the latest one:
    http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-07&url2=draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-09
Bert
document shepherd

On 2/8/11 3:05 AM, Tina Tsou wrote:
> 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.
>
> It is well written, so only some editorial comments are below.
>
> #1
> "
> 2.2.  Authentication, Integrity, and Confidentiality
> ...
> 2.3.  Authentication
> ...
> "
>
> Perhaps the Titles of 2.2 and 2.3 can harmonize better to explain why there
> are two "authentications" here.
>
> #2
> "
> 6.2.  Subtree Filter Components
>
>     A subtree filter is comprised of XML elements and their XML
>     attributes.  There are five types of components that may be present
>     in a subtree filter:
>
>     o  Namespace Selection
>
>     o  Attribute Match Expressions
>
>     o  Containment Nodes
>
>     o  Selection Nodes
>
>     o  Content Match Nodes
> ...
> "
>
> If a figure could be provided to describe the relationship among these 5
> components and when it becomes what, it would be very helpful for readers to
> understand more easily.
>
> #3
> "
> 6.2.3.  Containment Nodes
>
>     Nodes that contain child elements within a subtree filter are called
>     "containment nodes".
>
> I would say "Child Elements Nodes" or "Child Nodes" might be a little bit
> more of straight forward than "Containment Nodes".
>
>
> #4
> "
> 7.2.<edit-config>
> ...
> Parameters:
> ...
> merge:  The configuration data in the<config>  parameter is
>              merged with the configuration at the corresponding level in
>              the target datastore.  This is the default behavior.
> ...
> "
> Has the<config>  parameter been introduced before?
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Tina TSOU
> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>