Well, this is very meta. I'm reviewing a document about guidelines for (authors and) reviewers of documents. In particular, documents contraining YANG models. My review is specifically a security (directorate) review, and the document has a section (3.7) about (writing and) reviewing Security Considerations sections. The document, among other things, defines (in section 3.7.1) a template for the Security Considerations section of documents containing YANG modules.

The document has an obligatory Security Consideration section of its own, that sadly does not follow the template in section 3.7.1, even though section 5.1 does seem to register the "ietf-template" and the "iana-template" YANG modules. However, those only exists as examples, so that is fine. Instead the section has the usual (and true) statement that the document does not introduce any new risks.

Section 3.7 has guidelines for the Security Considerations, specifically that documents following RFC 8791 (data structure extensions) are exempt from following the template in 3.7.1, while others are not. I'm no expert on YANG, but the content of the template seems fine, discussing the need for authentication and authorization when writing to writable nodes, and the protection of sensitive data in the readable nodes. The template does not go into details about what sensitive data is, but that varies by domain and cannot be generalized to all uses of YANG. To me, the template looks fine, and I have seen it or earlier versions of it in previous documents.

There is one oddity that I'd like to point out. Section 3.7 gives a URL for the "official template". The webpage for that URL has the exact same text as the template in section 3.7.1. That is fine now, but the text is explicit that the text of the template on the web page may change - "Authors MUST check the web page at the URL listed above in case there is a more recent version available". The template itself does not contain RFC 2119 terminology, and anyway, the Security Considerations section in any document is subject to review whether it is based on a template or not.  Still, it is strange for a document to reference like that (and it is not mentioned in the References section) a web page that is subject to change.