[Teas] Deb Cooley's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Deb Cooley via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-25: Discuss

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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know much about Yang, but...

Section 7:  While this section appears to be modeled after RFC8341, it doesn't
actually help the implementer avoid security pitfalls.  Wording like 'are
designed to be accessed' or 'provides the means to restrict', don't imply what
SHOULD be done to prevent unwanted situations.

My suggestion is to reference RFC8341 directly by saying that the security
considerations listed there apply to this RFC.  I would also add that Security
Considerations in RFC6242 and RFC8446 also apply in the same way.

Please update the remaining paragraphs to state what can be done to avoid
whatever situation is being identified.

I'm happy to help with the rewrite, if that is needed.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nit:  Section 1, para 6:  MSDC should be MDSC.