[Teas] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-20

Melinda Shore via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 14 May 2019 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: teas@ietf.org
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B935A120168; Tue, 14 May 2019 11:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Melinda Shore via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>
Message-ID: <155785831655.30214.3189662700783001303@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 11:25:16 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Bfc-rrso2ZuF-6-KXikGm14L1Rc>
Subject: [Teas] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-20
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 18:25:17 -0000

Reviewer: Melinda Shore
Review result: Not Ready

This review updates my previous review of the -15 draft (see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-15-secdir-lc-shore-2018-06-07/).
 I'm pleased to see the update to the security considerations sections,
although it's still fairly generic and doesn't describe the threat environment
(this may seem like a nit but it's not: describing how changes to individual
subtrees may impact the system does not really detail how a malicious actor may
subvert or disable the system).  I think this section arguably does conform to
the yang-security-guidelines template despite the missing detail and modulo the
missing mandatory references to 5246 and 6536.  I'm torn between marking this
has "Has Issues" (because of the lack of threat description in the Security
Considerations) and "Not Ready" (because of the missing mandatory references)
but am going with the latter, and it's up to the IESG how heavily they'd like
to weight the generic descriptions of modified subtree impacts.