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

[Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Melinda,

Thanks for the review. We have posted the updated revision
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-21 to address
these issues. We have updated the text in the Security Considerations
section to describe the possible actions by a malicious attacker. As for
the mandatory references to RFC5246 and RFC6536, they were obsoleted by
newer RFCs so we replaced them with the newer ones.
RFC5246 has been obsoleted by RFC8446, so we now use RFC8446 instead. Do we
still need to reference RFC5246?
RFC6536 has been obsoleted by RFC8341, so we now use RFC8341 instead. Do we
still need to reference RFC6536?

Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 2:25 PM Melinda Shore via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>
>