[tcpm] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 29 June 2022 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAB3DC14CF05; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp@ietf.org, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org, tcpm@ietf.org, nsd.ietf@gmail.com, nsd.ietf@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 8.5.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <165652741582.27894.17676447277699982557@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:30:15 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/Pn-EzQhcC6eGXy1GULzm6MwjU14>
Subject: [tcpm] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 18:30:15 -0000

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thanks for this document. I have two minor comments.

1. In §1,

   *  TCP-AO and TCP MD5 configuration for Layer 3 VPNs is modeled in A
      Layer 3 VPN Network YANG Model [RFC9182].  This model assumes that
      TCP-AO specific parameters are preconfigured in addition to the
      keychain parameters.

When you say "this model" are you referring to RFC 9182, or the present
document? You could clarify by saying "that model" if you're talking about 9182
(which I think is the case?), or "the present document" if you mean your own

2. In §6, perhaps consider using a different term for an on-path attacker other
than "MITM", which conventionally (to my knowledge) expands to "man in the
middle". (Or I think you could just drop "e.g. MITM", which doesn't seem to add