On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:08 AM Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Dear Watson, > > Thanks for the review and good suggestion. You are correct that we inherit some security sensitivity during the augmentation process, so we have clarified the document security text in the -18 version. We have also underlined that network topology may be considered confidential in some scenarios, and access should be carefully managed. I think the revised text is fine. > > Thanks. > > Best wishes, > Haomian (on behalf of authors & contributors) > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Watson Ladd via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> > 发送时间: 2024年2月27日 1:10 > 收件人: secdir@xxxxxxxx > 抄送: ccamp@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx > 主题: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-17 > > Reviewer: Watson Ladd > Review result: Has Nits > > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. > > This document copy-pastes the security considerations from RFC 8795 and says that the augmentations have the security properties inherited from where they are attached. However it isn't clear if this is the only way in which fields defined here are sensitive. I think some rewording may be in order to clarify. > Otherwise I think this document is a straightforward augmentation of a YANG model. > > Sincerely, > Watson Ladd > > -- Astra mortemque praestare gradatim -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
