IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Teas] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-15

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 05 June 2018 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA37113107B for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 07:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.695
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.695 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.795, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h4Er5z4WO4aj for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 07:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.30.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C5D8131074 for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 07:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw13.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.13]) by gproxy3.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343DC406B3 for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:03:37 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id QCYIf0RmbLr3zQCYIfLa3E; Tue, 05 Jun 2018 08:03:10 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=2SL4vMVXYWFIfNLKBMthm+q5BP929RpaP0cZEOXHz3s=; b=QgzqOGXxUr/zNZZAfuo753nUk+ LaxfguzN8Hg0Tz+OrYjYUP3xCPQcs5xmc/hZB4fRogz3WACp3yE45KDzmLhgwYremlzJwwM6WGbcq A3d8CoUpD8pxMjDv945trArBo;
Received: from pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.86.101]:48608 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1fQCYg-003n9K-O8; Tue, 05 Jun 2018 08:03:34 -0600
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo.all@ietf.org
References: <152658832204.7577.3384283921850968264@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <0717d625-cf68-e9eb-4100-2da080d410ed@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 10:03:33 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <152658832204.7577.3384283921850968264@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.86.101
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1fQCYg-003n9K-O8
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.86.101]:48608
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 8
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Org: HG=bhcustomer;ORG=bluehost;
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/IQkRMRRbHhUEGOQdm1fzEsCAd-Y>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-15
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
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, 05 Jun 2018 14:05:36 -0000

Hi Russ,

     Thanks for the comments. Please take a look at 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-16 and let us 
know if this version does *not* address your issues.

Thanks,

Lou

(doc Shepherd)


On 5/17/2018 4:18 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review result: Not Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-15
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review Date: 2018-05-17
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-05-30
> IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-07
>
> Summary:  Not Ready
>
> Major Concerns:
>
> See https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines.  The
> Security Considerations section MUST follow the template provided on
> that web page, but it is not followed by this document.
>
> Note that [RFC5246], [RFC6241], [RFC6242], [RFC6536], and [RFC8040]
> are required to be normative references by those guidelines.  None of
> these appear in the references.
>
>
> Minor Concerns:
>
> Section 1.1: Please update the first paragraph to reference RFC 8174
> in addition to RFC 2119, as follows:
>
>     The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>     "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
>     "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
>     14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
>     capitals, as shown here.
>
> Section 1.1: Please add a reference to RFC 7926.
>
>
> Nits:
>
> Please pick one spelling (YANG vs. Yang) and use it throughout the
> document.
>
> The TOC contains several lines where the heading goes past the column
> of page numbers.  Reformatting would make this much easier to read.
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email