[secdir] Secdir last call partial review of draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-25

Watson Ladd via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 22 July 2021 05:54 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D3C3A3991; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 22:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Watson Ladd via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.35.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <162693328770.27111.6978873343722392140@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 22:54:47 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/yYZwGNGDWZ947s6dkLSf_SKH4NI>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call partial review of draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-25
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 05:54:49 -0000

Review is partially done. Another assignment may be needed to complete it.

Reviewer: Watson Ladd
Review result: Ready

Dear readers,
Forgive my completing this review almost a month late.

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, because I can't find anything wrong with
it. Your comfort with this fact should be minimal.

Benjamin Kaduk writes me to inform you that the issues with the PSK in TLS 1.3
are being worked on.

And now on to my evaluation of the document. The problem is that I can't
evaluate this in any substantive way: it is a whole bunch of YANG, a technology
I am completely ignorant of. The few English sentences I saw looked fine, and I
didn't spot anything wrong, but I likely wouldn't have.

Sincerely,
Watson Ladd