Re: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Tue, 06 March 2018 17:53 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH63ayGp2X+FmL9j9ajvF6nbGZM76YR6ttx0NyBvaQcRdw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <151932948231.8096.10376000064045374752@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHbuEH63ayGp2X+FmL9j9ajvF6nbGZM76YR6ttx0NyBvaQcRdw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 09:53:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CABCOCHS5yWgfYnKFcVCOibYGEa1pomaKkKonf1WqfToOCoxG9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, IETF SecDir <secdir@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0ed1eac32fcf0566c21d9d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/zPKK-qNrM-jzrFgK5gut-whCx6I>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18
Precedence: list

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <
kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for your review, Stephen!
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Stephen Farrell
> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> > Reviewer: Stephen Farrell
> > Review result: Ready
> >
> >
> > I reviewed the diff between -18 and RFC6087. [1]
> >
> >    [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc6087&url2=draft-ietf-
> netmod-rfc6087bis-18
> >
> > I assume the security ADs were involved already in discussion about
> > the new security considerations template in 3.7.1 and the text there
> > does seem fine to me, so I won't even nit-pick about it:-)
>
> Yes and I sent it to the SAAG list for review as well along with a
> followup email on the security review process for YANG documents (a
> link to the OPSdir page on that).  I don't think any feedback came
> through as a result of the request, so we should be good with the
> general considerations for a bit.
>
> >
> > I do have some other nits to note though.
> >
> > - There are a number of URLs given for access to updated materials
> > that use http schemed URLs and that do not use https schemed URLs.
> > There was a recent IESG statement to the effect that those'd be better
> > as https URLs. The first such example is in 3.1. In fact that URL is
> > re-directed (for me) to https. I think a general pass to fix such URLs
> > to use https wherever possible would be easy and better practice.
> >
>


no objection to changing the URLs to use https



> > - Some of the namespaces use http schemed URLs, for example in
> > section 4.2. I don't know if people are expected to de-reference such
> > URLs, but if they are then it'd be good to say if https is better to use
> > or not. (I'd argue it is.) If those URLs are not expected to be
> > de-referenced, then saying that would be good. (Not that it'd stop
> > people de-referencing 'em so the change is better in any case;-)
>
>
no objection to changing the YANG namespace examples to something else


> I don't see any response on these questions on list and it would be
> good to get an answer, so I'll include a link in my ballot in case the
> authors are not seeing it for some reason.
>
> Thanks,
> Kathleen
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > S.
> >
>
>
>

Andy


>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>

[secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-net… Stephen Farrell
Re: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf… Kathleen Moriarty
Re: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf… Andy Bierman
Re: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf… Kathleen Moriarty