Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> [...]
All of the fixes look good to me and require no comment, except the
following items:
>> Table 1: Label to RFC Mapping
>>
>> In -28, this caption appears visually to be the caption of both the
>> dependency diagram at the top of page 5 and the label-to-RFC mapping
>> table at the bottom of page 5, and so probably should be amended to
>> describe both of them together.
>
> s/Label in Diagram to RFC Mapping/Label to RFC Mapping/
>
> Good enough?
Since the title on the table in -28 already is "Label to RFC Mapping", I
think you didn't write here what you meant.
>> 3.10. The "ietf-crypto-types" YANG Module
>>
>> The title of this section seems to be uninformative given that 'The
>> "ietf-crypto-types" YANG Module' is the subject of the entire
>> document. Is this title what was intended?
>
> For the most part, yes, I see your point.
> Maybe s/The/For the/ or s/The/Regarding the/?
>
> In any case, be aware that there exists an IETF-defined template
> for the Security Considerations section that is to be used for each
> YANG module defined in a draft. So, if a draft defines the three
> modules: ietf-foo-common, ietf-foo-client, and ietf-foo-server, the
> Security Considerations section contains the three subsections:
>
> The "ietf-foo-common" YANG Module
> The "ietf-foo-client" YANG Module
> The "ietf-foo-server" YANG Module
>
> Each containing an instance of the template for that YANG module.
Ah, yes, and having this section hierarchy:
Security Considerations
The "ietf-foo-common" YANG Module
The "ietf-foo-client" YANG Module
The "ietf-foo-server" YANG Module
is quite clear. ... Even setting the title of the section to
"3.10. Security considerations for the the "ietf-crypto-types" YANG
Module" reads oddly as a subsection of "Security
considerations". ... What you *mean* is "RFC 8407 security
considerations section template", but that's too long. Perhaps
"Security considerations template"? "Template for the
"ietf-crypto-types" YANG Module"?
And there's an oddity that although 3.10 is the instantiated template
from RFC 8407/BCP 216 section 3.7.1, the draft doesn't reference RFC
8407/BCP 216. Could you add e.g. [RFC 8407] as a reference at the very
beginning of 3.10?
>> Some of the readable data nodes defined in this YANG module may be
>> considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It
>> is thus important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config,
>> or notification) to these data nodes. These are the subtrees and
>> data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
>>
>> The use of "These" in the last sentence does not have an unambiguous
>> referent as I read it. Perhaps "These subtrees/data nodes have these
>> particular sensitivities/vulnerabilities:" Similar considerations
>> apply to the last sentence of:
>>
>> Some of the operations in this YANG module may be considered
>> sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus
>> important to control access to these operations. These are the
>> operations and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
>
> This text comes from the aforementioned template. That said, I agree
> that it's not great. Perhaps, even better, "*The following* subtrees and
> data nodes have particular sensitivities/vulnerabilities"?
Yes, your version is clearer. (And the template should be updated that
way, too!)
Dale
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
