IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-yang-23

Stefan Santesson <stefan@aaa-sec.com> Mon, 15 July 2019 11:35 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan@aaa-sec.com>
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 B9482120098 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 04:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 m8GCWcWiSRfo for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 04:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.outgoing.loopia.se (smtp.outgoing.loopia.se [194.9.95.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0C1C120077 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 04:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s554.loopia.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by s554.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5231F163AA for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:27:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from s498.loopia.se (unknown [172.21.200.36]) by s554.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFDA794CD1; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:27:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from s476.loopia.se (unknown [172.22.191.6]) by s498.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB8A470765; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:27:29 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amavis.loopia.se
Received: from s499.loopia.se ([172.22.191.6]) by s476.loopia.se (s476.loopia.se [172.22.190.16]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id c-o2Vdwxj6ex; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:27:28 +0200 (CEST)
X-Loopia-Auth: user
X-Loopia-User: mailstore2@aaa-sec.com
X-Loopia-Originating-IP: 85.235.7.89
Received: from [192.168.1.217] (gw.aaa-sec.ideon.se [85.235.7.89]) (Authenticated sender: mailstore2@aaa-sec.com) by s499.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC7121CDADCA; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:27:28 +0200 (CEST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1a.0.190609
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:27:27 +0200
From: Stefan Santesson <stefan@aaa-sec.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-ospf-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <B5053CE9-64CA-4CB7-ACC5-27056CBF9767@aaa-sec.com>
Thread-Topic: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-yang-23
References: <156318424257.27269.7466334573453292957@ietfa.amsl.com> <71A4B5D4-2268-492C-9D9C-9023F2AC7ED8@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <71A4B5D4-2268-492C-9D9C-9023F2AC7ED8@cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/csBQRtFCE50_Spi0FuE9HY8DwGU>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-yang-23
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 15 Jul 2019 11:35:27 -0000

Thanks for clarifying that. I just noticed that V2 of OSPF had its abbreviation written out,  but not V3

I stand corrected then :)

Stefan Santesson 

On 2019-07-15, 13:12, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

    Hi Stefan, 
    
    On 7/15/19, 5:51 AM, "Stefan Santesson via Datatracker" <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
    
        Reviewer: Stefan Santesson
        Review result: Has Nits
        
        This document seems to have a reasonable security considerations section.
        
        As a nit, I notice that the abbreviation OSPF is not written out or explained
        at all in this document. One should hope that most people that find their way
        to this document are familiar with OSPF, but I still believe that is is
        appropriate for all IETF RFC to write out and briefly explain/reference
        abbreviations.
    
     Note that OSPF is in the list of abbreviations that don't require expansion - https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt
    
    In fact, OSPF had its own WG for more than 20 years __ We only combined OSPF and IS-IS into LSR less than 2 years back. 
    
    Thanks,
    Acee
        
        In summary this document seems well written

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email