IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Thu, 02 May 2019 11:36 UTC

Return-Path: <db3546@att.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 7A7A0120112; Thu, 2 May 2019 04:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.236
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_DYNAMIC=1.363, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 3QsV_Dz1ESld; Thu, 2 May 2019 04:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (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 670351200B9; Thu, 2 May 2019 04:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049297.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x42BP9Rb032838; Thu, 2 May 2019 07:36:49 -0400
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2s7up6n9gr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 02 May 2019 07:36:49 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x42BalmP020653; Thu, 2 May 2019 07:36:47 -0400
Received: from zlp27127.vci.att.com (zlp27127.vci.att.com [135.66.87.31]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x42BahpF020597 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 May 2019 07:36:43 -0400
Received: from zlp27127.vci.att.com (zlp27127.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp27127.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 7DD98400A011; Thu, 2 May 2019 11:36:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.9.129.145]) by zlp27127.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 697CE400A010; Thu, 2 May 2019 11:36:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.184]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.145]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 2 May 2019 07:36:42 -0400
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.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: AdUAYTJAbDOpeZpAQZy6V7gp15KFTgAL4eOAABKllhg=
Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 11:36:42 +0000
Message-ID: <25BB01EB-7731-49E5-9E37-AE41277BE9A0@att.com>
References: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C89F01BDA4@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>, <BN8PR06MB6289084A47C98F861C0FC2C1FC3B0@BN8PR06MB6289.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN8PR06MB6289084A47C98F861C0FC2C1FC3B0@BN8PR06MB6289.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_25BB01EB773149E59E37AE41277BE9A0attcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-05-02_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=907 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905020082
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/lppXDGW1rFvpbpfCcgW5WfHhW_s>
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 11:36:53 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email