Thanks, Andy! On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Andy Bierman <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Kathleen Moriarty > <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > > > > no objection to changing the URLs to use https > > >> >> > - 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;-) >> > > no objection to changing the YANG namespace examples to something else > >> >> 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. >> > >> >> > > > Andy > >> >> >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> Kathleen > > -- Best regards, Kathleen
