Re: [Teas] AD review: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types

Tarek Saad <> Wed, 01 May 2019 22:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 777E712003E; Wed, 1 May 2019 15:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WQZcQ39NkJzV; Wed, 1 May 2019 15:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::832]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DC0A120019; Wed, 1 May 2019 15:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y42so401975qtk.6; Wed, 01 May 2019 15:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :mime-version; bh=yotKaSaeS67tG+zJ5C3LsdA/RHTKJ0eXZT8Jw3CAAoI=; b=UfbhHoEO+h8c9QD7nrZXQ2Y2vqG03/k03ZDe7jTFWE6lVUAs8PhnVvVGAkQw8s40ol ckyG54ZSdOK5s35LveS8ZP7ATFSpcf3Jgs2fhwhfCCK7PinWM5ovcuaFhjsK/2FfWPZf d9JZXI/dQ+LiWJ+06wPWpc5V8EM5nh9yxhAgDdXtmoJCKncB949LmYBvRBOLG5MUhj9Z nzGTlc5zoAXBoeGgZuXszOuTlm3d3319WnJ4v5nyrDUjp7ivbWzlXfSCOZOUkI7bNCAP ZS5RS0l3d0Jo9Hvj2BYQOFHfGT/5zugSdtYlfT63/jqw0UZilAK2j2yYg4PmIvarkFvo sy3w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:mime-version; bh=yotKaSaeS67tG+zJ5C3LsdA/RHTKJ0eXZT8Jw3CAAoI=; b=U1AaRTrwUmdj1jHsKeu+QblmwtG0NOZ/fOR4RuF+1nyQyss1tw6ML0tReAqjPb14eS FrdSx+69oTvu//fNF4UlvTkRGlQFY9/UBccJFrLjDQcf1aXQKZiOmbqRh6vUDmHzv83c nrNKwiKjJdP6tsmIexLLjhd1rQmQxh5p3y3mO495QlUMcTxXqVkqkfUkmxfmKufplLzU dAuEUk8BLJa1555MZTWrhhKRXgUVGlqwOfmnd4S6taB/qCmSRSkJMJ6jv/ZBb0tVQbcf wxcsSCncQNFIKsI1UnyVKRDZlHyZL8V0syrn9GaQHNKZsxVx/UZUWdNoL6HIuE6HLK4W dJyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUp8NMB2mGgV8xubeji4plN1oNE0r5I94Dslctspv8GrvWiBtp9 6zXbeoJoT3NCY+rBk0AYMNc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwzpBu9qaDcqHZKA65SYWD3kts3CtCDZcoNUvGzRWPabLC3XVXCPzjc6B1dtycXzysQjb+THQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:9568:: with SMTP id m37mr570263qvm.154.1556750568299; Wed, 01 May 2019 15:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTPSA id u16sm18751403qka.52.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 May 2019 15:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tarek Saad <>
To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] AD review: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types
Thread-Index: ATQ4QTRB92wWcE4fazHPv2LfJy3i48GQW/zE
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Wed, 1 May 2019 22:42:47 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN8PR06MB6289084A47C98F861C0FC2C1FC3B0BN8PR06MB6289namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] AD review: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 May 2019 22:42:52 -0000

Hi Deborah,

Thanks for your review. This I-D document only defines reusable groupings and common types (i.e. it does not define any writable, readable schema or rpc operations); hence, we’ve only included a summary indicating this in the security considerations section – similar to what’s in RFC6991.
The guideline(s) in RFC8407 are specific to module(s) that are introducing the writable schema and hence can introduce certain risk(s).
Please let us know if you still think what we have in the security section is not enough and we’ll try to update accordingly.


From: Teas <> on behalf of "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <>
Date: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 5:14 PM
To: "" <>
Cc: "" <>rg>, "" <>
Subject: [Teas] AD review: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types

Hi Authors,

I was just getting ready to start Last Call so as to have both this document and te-topo go together. Scanning the document, I noted the Security section is not sufficient. It needs to use the template of RFC8407 Guidelines for YANG Documents. Refer to draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo.

As soon as you update, I’ll start Last Call.