Hi Takeshi, Thanks for your review. The confusion might be between Network Access Control Lists (ACLs) and NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM). I can tighten up the text so that this is clear. See https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-10&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-11.txt Thanks! Dhruv On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 7:45 AM Takeshi Takahashi via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Takeshi Takahashi > Review result: Ready > > The security consideration section is written well. > I have one minor comment. > The security consideration section discusses the necessity of access control by > referencing RFC 8341. The access control feature was also discussed in Section > 5, but the section refers RFC 5905 and RFC 8519. Since they are both dealing > with the necessity of access control, it would be nicer if the security > consideration section discusses the need for access control with the same (at > least one same) reference. > > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
