Hi, Yaroslav, Thanks for the follow-up. We have submitted -18 to fix the nits below. Regarding your last comment (i.e., leafs vs. leaves), note both 7950 and 8342 use leafs as the plural form, thus we tend to keep it as it is.
Best Regards, Qiufang -----Original Message----- From: Yaroslav Rosomakho [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 12:13 AM To: maqiufang (A) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [secdir] Re: draft-ietf-netmod-system-config-16 ietf last call Secdir review Thank you for addressing the key issues! After reading draft-17 I see few minor nits I'd recommend correcting: 1. Section 6.1 says "If system configuration changes, <running> SHOULD remain a valid configuration data tree." I think this statement needs to be either changed to MUST or clarified under which circumstances <running> may have invalid configuration data tree. Invalid configuration may also pose a security risk - especially if an attacker has a creative way of triggering such a condition intentionally. 2. Section 7.2 YANG module copyright year needs to be updated to 2026 3. Typo is section 7.3: "could be reterieved" -> "could be retrieved" 4. Section 7.3: "in an NETCONF" -> "in a NETCONF" 5. First example is Section A.1: "additional leafs" -> "additional leaves" -yaroslav On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 1:26 PM maqiufang (A) <maqiufang1= [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Yaroslav, > > Thanks a lot for the review. Thought I believe it is the documents > that define the data nodes/subtree themselves should take care of > their sensitivity, it does no harm to reiterate these concerns in this > document _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
