Note: Once Mahesh closes the last bit of review on the update for secure-sequence-numbers, both that document and optimizing authentication will get their next publish to the datatracker. Thanks for everyone's patience as we work through challenging edits in github.
> On Oct 7, 2025, at 7:56 AM, Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Apologies for the delay. > > I looked at a diff of the -32 and -34 (proposed) version. It looks great. I > appreciate the work this must have taken. I think this takes care of the > majority of my comments. Good news! > > > The only comment that I think I have left is a warning in the Security > Considerations about the strength of the key provisioned and the method of > provision. Perhaps something like: > "Keys generated and distributed out of band for the purposes > described in this specification are generally limited in the security they > can provide. It is essential > that these keys are selected well, and protected when stored." > This was just a quick example I found in RFC 8018 (I modified it). If you > have better text, I'm fine with that too. I've incorporated this verbatim at the end of the current protocol security considerations. > > Nits: > Places where 'strong' still exist. > Section 5, para 3: > Section 7, #1 and last para: > Section 8.3 Yang module - twice in description fields. These will be in next push. > Section 10.1, first sentence: (maybe 'more'? 'better'?) I think the current text is probably the right sense. Let's defer this one to the RFC Editor. -- Jeff
