| Russ, thanks for your review. Xufeng, thanks for your response. The security considerations look good to me. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
Hi Russ,
Thanks for checking on this document.
Regarding the Security Considerations section, there is a recent update to the guidelines https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines. [RFC5246] has been obsoleted by [RFC8446], and [RFC6536] has been obsoleted by [RFC8341]. Therefore, this document has been updated with [RFC8446] and [RFC8341] instead, according to the updated guidelines.
Please let us know if this is correct.
Thanks, - Xufeng
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 9:43 AM Russ Housley via Datatracker < noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review result: Not Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>..
Document: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-20
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2019-05-02
IETF LC End Date: 2019-05-15
IESG Telechat date: Unknown
Summary: Not Ready
Major Concerns:
See https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines. The
Security Considerations section MUST follow the template provided on
that web page, and the guidelines require normative references to
[RFC5246] and [RFC6536], among others. These two RFCs do not appear
in the references.
Minor Concerns:
None
Nits:
The TOC contains several lines where the heading goes past the column
of page numbers. Reformatting would make this much easier to read.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@xxxxxxxxhttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
|
