Thanks for your review, Stephen! On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Reviewer: Stephen Farrell > Review result: Ready > > > I reviewed the diff between -18 and RFC6087. [1] > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc6087&url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18 > > I assume the security ADs were involved already in discussion about > the new security considerations template in 3.7.1 and the text there > does seem fine to me, so I won't even nit-pick about it:-) Yes and I sent it to the SAAG list for review as well along with a followup email on the security review process for YANG documents (a link to the OPSdir page on that). I don't think any feedback came through as a result of the request, so we should be good with the general considerations for a bit. > > I do have some other nits to note though. > > - There are a number of URLs given for access to updated materials > that use http schemed URLs and that do not use https schemed URLs. > There was a recent IESG statement to the effect that those'd be better > as https URLs. The first such example is in 3.1. In fact that URL is > re-directed (for me) to https. I think a general pass to fix such URLs > to use https wherever possible would be easy and better practice. > > - Some of the namespaces use http schemed URLs, for example in > section 4.2. I don't know if people are expected to de-reference such > URLs, but if they are then it'd be good to say if https is better to use > or not. (I'd argue it is.) If those URLs are not expected to be > de-referenced, then saying that would be good. (Not that it'd stop > people de-referencing 'em so the change is better in any case;-) I don't see any response on these questions on list and it would be good to get an answer, so I'll include a link in my ballot in case the authors are not seeing it for some reason. Thanks, Kathleen > > Cheers, > S. > -- Best regards, Kathleen
