Hi Megan, I need more time on this cluster of the I2NSF drafts because I was busy with my teaching and research last month. I am in Montreal for the IETF 124 Meeting, so I will focus on the revision of those drafts according to your comments.
Thanks for your waiting and patience. Best Regards, Paul On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 1:37 AM Megan Ferguson < [email protected]> wrote: > Paul, > > Perfect timing as I will be out of office next week. > > Note that if you do encounter any blocking issue that requires assistance > in my absence, you can still reach out to [email protected] > (otherwise, your response will be handled upon my return). > > Thank you. > > Megan Ferguson > RFC Production Center > > > On Oct 9, 2025, at 8:21 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Megan, > > That's great! > > > > I will work on your questions from tomorrow for a week and will come > back to you > > when I have them resolved in the five revised xml files. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Best Regards, > > Paul > > > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 11:02 PM Megan Ferguson < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > Thank you for sending along the ordering information; we have noted your > response and will use this information in our editing and RFC number > assignment. > > > > Note that these documents will remain in AUTH state until we hear back > with the updated files addressing Questions 1-10. > > > > Thank you for your attention to this document set! > > > > Megan Ferguson > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 2025, at 4:41 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Megan, > > > Here are my answers as the editor of all these six drafts inline below. > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 10:58 PM Megan Ferguson < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > All, > > > > > > A further question: do you have guidance on reading order for these > drafts? > > > => Yes, we have guidance on reading order for them. > > > > > > > > > If so, please let us know using an RFC NNNN, RFC NNNN+1, RFC NNNN+2 > format. > > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-29 => RFC NNNN + 3 > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-20 => RFC NNNN + 4 > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-applicability-18 => RFC NNNN + 5 > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32 => RFC NNNN > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-26 => RFC NNNN + 1 > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31 => RFC NNNN + 2 > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > Megan Ferguson > > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 2025, at 8:47 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Megan, > > > > Sure, we can work on those documents together. > > > > If I need your help, I will let you know. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Paul > > > > =========================== > > > > Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong > > > > Professor > > > > Department of Computer Science and Engineering > > > > Sungkyunkwan University > > > > Phone: +82-31-299-4957 > > > > Email: [email protected], [email protected] > > > > URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php > > > > > > > > > > > > 2025년 10월 1일 (수) 오전 12:09, Megan Ferguson < > [email protected]>님이 작성: > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > > > > > Thank you for your reply. We look forward to working with you to > get these documents moving through the publication process! > > > > > > > > I’ve made sure to update the CC field to include the AUTH48 archive > and Roman as AD (and removed Deb Cooley per her separate reply). > > > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out with any questions/concerns as > necessary. > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > Megan Ferguson > > > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 30, 2025, at 3:09 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Megan, > > > > > Thanks for your excellent work on this cluster of I2NSF YANG Data > Model drafts. > > > > > > > > > > I will work on your comments and questions this and next weeks as > the editor of all these five drafts > > > > > and come back to you later. > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > Paul > > > > > -- > > > > > =========================== > > > > > Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong > > > > > Professor > > > > > Department of Computer Science and Engineering > > > > > Sungkyunkwan University > > > > > Phone: +82-31-299-4957 > > > > > Email: [email protected], [email protected] > > > > > URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php > > > > > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaehoonjeong/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:44 PM Megan Ferguson < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Authors, Editors, *ADs, > > > > > > > > > > We have a number of questions related to the following documents > from Cluster 405 (C405): > > > > > > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-20 > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31 > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32 > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-26 > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-29 > > > > > > > > > > We note that resolving these questions may require significant > author input or updates. As such, we would like to raise these issues now, > rather than during AUTH48. Please review the questions/comments below, > discuss amongst yourselves, update the attached XML files with any > necessary changes, and resubmit the xml files to the RPC via email at your > earliest convenience. > > > > > > > > > > As this is outside our normal process, note that the files are in > various states of editorial completion and have not yet benefitted from a > final review within the RPC. Therefore, we ask that you ignore any edits > or queries in the XML files not directly related to the list below (i.e., > please refrain from making any further changes at this time). All other > queries/issues will be handled once the documents reach AUTH48. > > > > > > > > > > Please reach out with any questions and let us know if we can be > of further assistance as you complete this process. > > > > > > > > > > Note: Each of the above documents has been moved to “AUTH” state > (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/) as they are awaiting author > action prior to moving forward in the publication process. > > > > > > > > > > The related cluster information page is viewable at: > > > > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C405 > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > Megan Ferguson > > > > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) The text in the Security Considerations sections of the > following documents does not match the boilerplate at > https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines. > > > > > > > > > > We also note that RFC 4252 has not been cited in the references > sections. > > > > > > > > > > Please consider what, if any, updates need to be made. Note that > these updates will likely require *AD approval. > > > > > > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-20 > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31 > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32 > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-26 > > > > > > > > > > For draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-29: > > > > > > > > > > As we do not see any mention of RPC operations in this document, > please confirm that the "Some of the RPC operations" paragraph as listed on > <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines> is not > applicable to this document. > > > > > > > > > > 2) *AD - please review and approve the changes that the authors > made between version -18 and version -20 of > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model at: > > > > > > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/history/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) For each document in the list at the top of this mail, please > review the following related to titles: > > > > > > > > > > We note that most of the published RFCs containing YANG modules > format their titles as "A YANG Data Model for...", for example: > > > > > > > > > > RFC 9094 - A YANG Data Model for Wavelength Switched Optical > Networks (WSONs) > > > > > RFC 9093 - A YANG Data Model for Layer 0 Types > > > > > RFC 9067 - A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy > > > > > > > > > > We also note the guidance from RFC 7322 (RFC Style Guide) to > expand abbreviations in document titles. > > > > > > > > > > Please consider whether the titles of these documents should be > updated to something like the following example: > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > > A YANG Data Model for Interface to Network Security Functions > (I2NSF) Monitoring > > > > > > > > > > Note: If changes are made, please also consider if changes to the > abbreviated title should be made as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) The following questions relate to the Terminology sections: > > > > > > > > > > a) We note that these documents: > > > > > > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-20 > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31 > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32 > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-29 > > > > > > > > > > include the following text in the Terminology section: > > > > > > > > > > This document uses the terminology described in [RFC8329]. > > > > > > > > > > However, when looking at the Terminology section of RFC 8329 > (included below for your convenience), we see that no definitions are > listed: there is simply a list of terms and a pointer to > draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-08 ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology/), which is > now expired: > > > > > > > > > > 2.2. Definitions > > > > > > > > > > The following terms, which are used in this document, are > defined in > > > > > the I2NSF terminology document [I2NSF-TERMS]: > > > > > > > > > > Capability > > > > > Controller > > > > > Firewall > > > > > I2NSF Consumer > > > > > I2NSF NSF-Facing Interface > > > > > I2NSF Policy Rule > > > > > I2NSF Producer > > > > > I2NSF Registration Interface > > > > > I2NSF Registry > > > > > Interface > > > > > Interface Group > > > > > Intrusion Detection System > > > > > Intrusion Protection System > > > > > Network Security Function > > > > > Role > > > > > > > > > > We further note that not all terms listed in RFC 8329 are used in > this document set and that some terms from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-08 > are used but not listed in RFC 8329 (e.g., I2NSF Consumer-Facing > Interface). > > > > > > > > > > We recommend including the definitions used in this set of > documents in the documents themselves instead of pointing to an expired > draft from 2018. > > > > > > > > > > Note: If more than one document in this cluster uses a term, we > suggest including the definition in one document and including a citation > to that document in the other documents in the cluster. > > > > > > > > > > b) Related to the above, > draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-26 uses: > > > > > > > > > > This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC3444], > > > > > [RFC8329] and [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model]. > > > > > > > > > > However, the definitions listed and those in RFC 8329 (and thus > draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-08) are not the same. For example: > > > > > > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-26: > > > > > Network Security Function (NSF): A function that is > responsible for > > > > > a specific treatment of received packets. A Network Security > > > > > Function can act at various layers of a protocol stack > (e.g., at > > > > > the network layer or other OSI layers). Sample Network > Security > > > > > Service Functions are as follows: Firewall, Intrusion > Prevention/ > > > > > Detection System (IPS/IDS), Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), > > > > > Application Visibility and Control (AVC), network virus and > > > > > malware scanning, sandbox, Data Loss Prevention (DLP), > Distributed > > > > > Denial of Service (DDoS) mitigation and TLS proxy. > > > > > > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-08: > > > > > Network Security Function (NSF): Software that provides a set > of > > > > > security-related services. Examples include detecting > unwanted > > > > > activity and blocking or mitigating the effect of such > unwanted > > > > > activity in order to fulfil service requirements. The NSF > can > > > > > also help in supporting communication stream integrity and > > > > > confidentiality. > > > > > > > > > > Please review the above text and consider if/how to update either > the citation or the definition. > > > > > > > > > > c) Related to a), we see RFC 8329 and > draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-08 use the term "Intrusion Protection System > (IPS)” while this set of documents uses Intrusion Prevention System > (however, in draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32, we do see > "intrusion detection and/or protection" as well as "Intrusion Prevention > System (IPS)"). Please review and update accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) The following questions relate to the reference clauses in the > YANG modules: > > > > > > > > > > a) We see mixed styles in reference clauses with regard to use of > a section number, a concept name, a section name/title, and an RFC title. > > > > > > > > > > We suggest making the reference clauses in the YANG modules > uniform following the pattern below to match the guidance in > draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28 ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/) where a > section number (instead of a concept) is pointed to. > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > reference > > > > > "RFC 9110: HTTP Semantics > > > > > - Request Method PUT"; > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > > reference > > > > > "RFC 9110: HTTP Semantics, Section 9.3.4"; > > > > > > > > > > b) For draft-ietf-i2nsf-monitoring-data-model-20: > > > > > > > > > > [IEEE-802.1AB]'s title is "IEEE Standard for Local and > metropolitan area networks - Station and Media Access Control Connectivity > Discovery" rather than "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area > networks - Station and Media Access Control Connectivity Discovery - > > > > > Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP)”. Should this be updated as > follows in the YANG reference clauses? > > > > > > > > > > Current: > > > > > reference > > > > > "IEEE-802.1AB: IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan > > > > > area networks - Station and Media Access Control > > > > > Connectivity Discovery - Link Layer Discovery Protocol > > > > > (LLDP)" > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > > reference > > > > > "IEEE-802.1AB: IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan > > > > > area networks - Station and Media Access Control > > > > > Connectivity Discovery" > > > > > > > > > > c) For draft-ietf-i2nsf-monitoring-data-model-20: > > > > > > > > > > [RFC4861] does not contain a section titled "Neighbor Discovery > Protocol (ND)" and because the entire document is about Neighbor Discovery, > please review whether a section pointer is necessary when completing the > updates suggested in (a) above. > > > > > > > > > > Current: > > > > > > > > > > RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 > (IPv6) - > > > > > Neighbor Discovery Protocol (ND)”; > > > > > > > > > > d) See a further possible update to YANG reference clauses in > question 6e below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) The following questions relate to citations/references of these > documents: > > > > > > > > > > a) The "YANG Module Names" registry is defined in RFC 6020 and not > in RFC 7950. Please see Section 14 of RFC 6020 ( > https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020) and > https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/. > > > > > > > > > > We have changed "7950" to "6020" accordingly (and added an > informative reference entry to RFC 6020). Please let us know any concerns > with these updates. > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module > in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC7950][RFC8525]: > > > > > > > > > > Currently: > > > > > IANA has registered the following YANG module in the "YANG Module > Names" registry [RFC6020] [RFC8525]: > > > > > > > > > > b) We note that some of these documents contain snippets of XML. > Per < > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/formal-languages-use/>, > we believe the documents should cite [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] ("Extensible > Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition)") somewhere in the body of the > document and list it as a Normative Reference, per RFC 8349. Please add an > appropriate citation and reference entry where necessary. > > > > > > > > > > c) For draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31: > > > > > > > > > > We see several RFCs mentioned in the lead-in text to the YANG > module that are not included in the YANG module itself. Please review and > consider if these citations (and possibly their corresponding reference > entries) should be removed. > > > > > > > > > > The list has been included below for your convenience: > > > > > > > > > > [RFC0768] > > > > > [RFC0854] > > > > > [RFC0959] > > > > > [RFC1939] > > > > > [RFC2595] > > > > > [RFC3022] > > > > > [RFC4250] > > > > > [RFC4340] > > > > > [RFC4443] > > > > > [RFC5321] > > > > > [RFC9051] > > > > > [RFC9110] > > > > > [RFC9112] > > > > > [RFC9113] > > > > > [RFC9260] > > > > > [RFC9293] > > > > > > > > > > d) For draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31: > > > > > > > > > > The reference below appears to be pointing to the POSIX.1 > standard. However, the provided URL points to a specific page in the > POSIX.1 specification for "glob". > > > > > > > > > > We recommend having this reference's URL point to the > specification in general, rather than this specific page. > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, please note that there is a more up-to-date version > of POSIX.1: > > > > > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/ > > > > > (The updated URL for "glob” is > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/glob.html) > > > > > > > > > > Would you like to update this reference to the most current > version? (FYI - We have inserted a comment in the XML with this updated > information). > > > > > > > > > > For your convenience, we have included the suggested updated > reference for you to review (combining points a and b above) in text form > below: > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > [GLOB] IEEE, "The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7, > 2018 > > > > > Edition", IEEE Std 1003.1-2017, > > > > > <https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ > > > > > functions/glob.html>. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > > [GLOB] IEEE/The Open Group, "The Open Group Base > Specifications > > > > > Issue 8", POSIX.1-2024, IEEE Std 1003.1-2024, 2024, > > > > > <https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/>. > > > > > > > > > > e) For draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31 and > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-29: > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the [ISO-3166-1alpha2], [ISO-3166-2], and [ISO-3166] > references: > > > > > > > > > > The URL for [ISO-3166-1alpha2] goes to a page titled "ISO 3166 > Country Codes" (Note: this is the same URL that [ISO-3166-2] redirects to). > > > > > > > > > > It appears the decoding table of ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes is now > available here: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:pub:PUB500001:en. > > > > > > > > > > We found the following URL for the most up-to-date version of ISO > 3166-2 (ISO 3166-2:2020): https://www.iso.org/standard/72483.html. > > > > > > > > > > Would you like to update to point to the most up-to-date version > of ISO 3166 (see example reference updates below)? (FYI - We have inserted > a comment in the XML with this updated information). > > > > > > > > > > Note that further updates to these references are recommended with > regard to title, etc. Please review and confirm or let us know if any > further changes are necessary: > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > [ISO-3166-2] > > > > > ISO, "ISO 3166-2:2007", > > > > > <https://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/ > > > > > country_codes.htm#2012_iso3166-2>. > > > > > > > > > > Suggested: > > > > > [ISO-3166-2] > > > > > > > > > > ISO, "Codes for the representation of names of > countries > > > > > and their subdivisions - Part 2: Country subdivision > > > > > code", ISO 3166-2:2020, August 2020, > > > > > <https://www.iso.org/standard/72483.html>. > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > [ISO-3166-1alpha2] > > > > > ISO, "ISO 3166-1 decoding table", > > > > > < > https://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/country_codes/iso- > > > > > 3166-1_decoding_table.htm>. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > > [ISO-3166-1alpha2] > > > > > ISO, "Decoding table of ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes", > > > > > <https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:pub:PUB500001:en>. > > > > > > > > > > In light of the suggested updates to the titles (above) and to > match the citation tags used, we further suggest updating the titles in the > YANG reference clauses to match (note that these updates would occur in > multiple places). > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > "ISO 3166-2: 3166-2 subdivision code”; > > > > > > > > > > "ISO 3166-1: Decoding table alpha-2 country code”; > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > > "ISO 3166-2: Codes for the representation of names of countries > > > > > and their subdivisions - Part 2: Country subdivision > > > > > code"; > > > > > > > > > > "ISO 3166-1alpha2: Decoding table of ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes”; > > > > > > > > > > NOTE: Throughout the the rest of the document, and in the YANG > module, we see the following mixed use when discussing these specs. > > > > > > > > > > ISO 3166-2 > > > > > ISO3166-1 alpha-2 vs. ISO3166-1 alpha 2 > > > > > > > > > > We have updated these for consistency within the document as well > as within the RFC Series. Please let us know any objections. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > f) For draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32 and > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-29: > > > > > > > > > > Please review the references [IEEE802.3-2018] and [IEEE-802.3]. > This IEEE Standard was superseded by a new version in 2022 ( > https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9844436). Would you like to update > this reference to use the most current version? (FYI - We have inserted a > comment in the XML files with this updated information). > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > [IEEE802.3-2018] > > > > > Committee, I. S., "IEEE 802.3-2018 - IEEE Standard > for > > > > > Ethernet", August 2018, > > > > > <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8457469>. > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > [IEEE-802.3] > > > > > Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, > "IEEE > > > > > Standard for Ethernet", 2018, > > > > > <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8457469/>. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > > [IEEE802.3-2022] > > > > > IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Ethernet", IEEE Std > 802.3-2022, > > > > > DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9844436, July 2022, > > > > > <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9844436>. > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > [IEEE-802.3] > > > > > IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Ethernet", IEEE Std > 802.3-2022, > > > > > DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9844436, July 2022, > > > > > <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9844436>. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > g) For draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-26: > > > > > > > > > > Please review the reference [nfv-framework]: > > > > > > > > > > We found a more recent version of this ETSI Group Specification at > the > > > > > following URL: > > > > > > https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/nfv/001_099/002/01.02.01_60/gs_nfv002v010201p.pdf > . > > > > > > > > > > Note that this appears to be Version 1.2.1 published in December > 2014, while the current reference points to Version 1.1.1 published in > October 2013. (Note: we were unable to find a URL for Version 1.1.1). > > > > > > > > > > Should this reference be updated to use the more recent version > from December 2014? (FYI - We have inserted a comment in the XML with this > updated information if you’d like to adopt it). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7) The following questions are about contact information: > > > > > > > > > > a) Jinyong, Jaehoon, and Liang: > > > > > > > > > > We see a mix of the following forms throughout this cluster: > > > > > > > > > > Jinyong Tim Kim vs. Jinyong (Tim) Kim > > > > > Jaehoon Paul Jeong vs. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong (past RFCs do not use > parentheses) > > > > > Liang Frank Xia vs. Liang Xia > > > > > > > > > > We have updated to use the following consistently: > > > > > > > > > > Jinyong Tim Kim > > > > > Jaehoon Paul Jeong > > > > > Liang Frank Xia > > > > > > > > > > And we have used only single first initial for each author in the > header. Please review and update as desired. > > > > > > > > > > b) We note several authors/contributors have similar affiliations > at the same university. > > > > > Please review if updates are needed for consistency. > > > > > > > > > > Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering > > > > > Department of Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering > > > > > Department of Computer Science and Engineering > > > > > > > > > > c) Liang: > > > > > > > > > > We see slightly different addresses in different documents (e.g., > the district being listed vs. not and the code being listed vs. not). We > suggest updating to match the address published in RFC 9684 (please also > keep question 7a in mind). > > > > > > > > > > As published in RFC 9684: > > > > > > > > > > Liang Xia (Frank) > > > > > Huawei Technologies > > > > > Yuhuatai District > > > > > 101 Software Avenue > > > > > Nanjing > > > > > Jiangsu, 210012 > > > > > China > > > > > Email: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > d) Diego: > > > > > > > > > > We see different addresses in these two documents. Please review > these and update for consistency as necessary. > > > > > > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32: > > > > > > > > > > Diego R. Lopez - Telefonica I+D, Zurbaran, 12, Madrid, 28010, > Spain, > > > > > Email: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-26: > > > > > > > > > > Diego R. Lopez - Telefonica I+D, Jose Manuel Lara, 9, Seville, > > > > > 41013, Spain. EMail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8) Please review whether any of the notes in the documents should > be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for content that > is semantically less important or tangential to the > > > > > content that surrounds it" ( > https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). If no updates are > necessary, please confirm that the text should remain as is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9) Some author comments are present in the XML files. Please > confirm that no updates related to these comments are outstanding and > delete the resolved comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10) Please review the line lengths of yang trees and other figures > to ensure they fit within the 69-character limit and make any updates > necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
