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

Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com> Thu, 02 May 2019 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
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 CBA27120387; Thu, 2 May 2019 07:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 0ToCz9JNlnNO; Thu, 2 May 2019 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-x12c.google.com (mail-it1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73E75120103; Thu, 2 May 2019 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id a190so3528475ite.4; Thu, 02 May 2019 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; 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=CWOcG1tNRWGUM+Wqm/Ihj3FlyGt0f25RsrkubPJnuUM=; b=Tcu5S23HLs+jeL2hn+6X1SFg04iiMuyKTYe4iHN2yJPRiK1PSrezV48h8BrLqpBMTX jrooCfaZZp5FUDDCrMFKcWiJmGdrt4xTcDCGUNBqmWrxnGWizchKA/TiOSv6nA+OviFR ERHIoTqnO5nUeNuW0Su6PsheXIV7MZUvWsVt8PluODTZuyn9OJFg922AbD1Pb5X/+kjd w1hQ2LShSxLq9fADnlO79qoxVhW3fnqgfbBIh1b5KeUxXt5FEWV5rk+H8lS0ICZI+sq1 iWWKIMBsZEB7PNAm/vbySp7gjAL5OxKfoFC8HCOHa6a6QV7SPq9a1Pn6XOgC94fmd2Nz MsaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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=CWOcG1tNRWGUM+Wqm/Ihj3FlyGt0f25RsrkubPJnuUM=; b=cNI7cX99X0652SaWfj8XLjog4BlQtHw+vpOcs34xf/Z/Lb1M3E+2eAv8R2wGjbgVu1 qSJFYeIP1CRhWr7OYcjBXXQzlCF6TUEpkImLga+v+CDc4zAETDCo+WpgW6Sqx92nxJca 46gs1I697DPg4+Y7ivMO/7hOSwuGUpwSeqa16aRCprXQO/dWc5CQJf1f37Ywat4WtGsS ftUgLd/VZMy20A916nKW4eOUJx0EozzIWiBeBtNh+1PDOTbVThCPKfF/0gVIykp7zau6 uXKM136E9sVcj6TXevUeo0mSwi9ZjEkIemRTiiPOnxMfWYqBh51Lo47B/COPCLVIIlmU h7Og==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUqBH6OpndhuALnZWvG/x1jZD6Gry/IdZoW0+4eJY8fy6qiPX0P VPvOPiFoBFqiwafKiijzVKI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwIFW5fe30d0iYonrDuQ48ROwwwtU5kej5WMMEGs2BgnpLa5bpQOMQLzNbEqnQLL53/Cp89hw==
X-Received: by 2002:a24:1908:: with SMTP id b8mr2522273itb.136.1556806376817; Thu, 02 May 2019 07:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BN8PR06MB6289.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([52.96.29.13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e19sm14240301ioc.13.2019.05.02.07.12.55 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 02 May 2019 07:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>, "teas-chairs@ietf.org" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] AD review: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types
Thread-Index: ATQ4QTRB92wWcE4fazHPv2LfJy3i4zAyOEE2MDIzNEK+jjyBnA==
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 14:12:54 +0000
Message-ID: <BN8PR06MB62893883ED34F733B579813CFC340@BN8PR06MB6289.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C89F01BDA4@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com> <BN8PR06MB6289084A47C98F861C0FC2C1FC3B0@BN8PR06MB6289.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <25BB01EB-7731-49E5-9E37-AE41277BE9A0@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <25BB01EB-7731-49E5-9E37-AE41277BE9A0@att.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN8PR06MB62893883ED34F733B579813CFC340BN8PR06MB6289namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/kQ0eAYLcjJGVBetr5K8O3j4oqoU>
Subject: Re: [Teas] AD review: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 02 May 2019 14:13:00 -0000

Thank you Deborah.

I just uploaded new version @ https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09 to address this. Please let us know if there are any other concerns.

Regards,
Tarek

From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
Date: Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:36 AM
To: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>rg>, "teas-chairs@ietf.org" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>rg>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] AD review: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types

Hi Tarek,

All current documents being processed need to use the template i.e. the first two paragraphs of the template are applicable. And add the sentence you have below regarding the modules if the remainder is not.

Deborah
Sent from my iPhone

On May 1, 2019, at 6:42 PM, Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>> wrote:
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.

Regards,
Tarek

From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com<mailto:db3546@att.com>>
Date: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 5:14 PM
To: "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>>
Cc: "teas-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>" <teas-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>>, "teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>" <teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>>
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.

Thanks-
Deborah