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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 17 May 2018 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietf.org
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388E312711D; Thu, 17 May 2018 13:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
To: <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.80.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152658832204.7577.3384283921850968264@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 13:18:42 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/mv2bQYMb1R3uqovi_XO4PC23fG8>
Subject: [Teas] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-15
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 17 May 2018 20:18:42 -0000

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

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",
   "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.


Please pick one spelling (YANG vs. Yang) and use it throughout the

The TOC contains several lines where the heading goes past the column
of page numbers.  Reformatting would make this much easier to read.