Forwarding to the lists that were dropped from the CC list. > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Cluster Queries for C405: [AD] > 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, and > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-29 > Date: November 25, 2025 at 5:08:12 PM MST > To: Robert Moskowitz <[email protected]> > Cc: Megan Ferguson <[email protected]>, [email protected], > Sue Hares <[email protected]>, [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], Paul Wouters <[email protected]>, Shawn Zandi > via auth48archive <[email protected]>, [email protected], Roman > Danyliw <[email protected]>, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email protected]> > > Hi Robert and Megan, > I have been busy with my university teaching since the IETF 124. > I will be able to work on this cluster of I2NSF drafts from next week. > > I am sorry for this delay. > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Paul > =========================== > Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong > Professor > Department of Computer Science and Engineering > Sungkyunkwan University > Mobile: +82-10-4758-1765 > Phone: +82-31-299-4957 > Email: [email protected], [email protected] > URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php > > > 2025년 11월 26일 (수) 오전 7:08, Robert Moskowitz <[email protected]>님이 작성: > I just found this thread in a supposedly inactive folder! > > I will attempt to figure it out... > > Bob > > > On 11/3/25 12:27 PM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote: >> Megan, >> Thanks for your understanding and support.:-) >> >> If I have questions about my work on this cluster, I will contact RFC >> editors in Montreal. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Best Regards, >> Paul >> >> On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 12:23 PM Megan Ferguson >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> >> No problem from our end; please take the time you need. >> >> I am not in Montreal, but there are several editors from the RPC there with >> office hours at the RFC Editor table. Please feel free to either stop by >> and see them or email me directly if you have anything you’d like to ask as >> you work through your revisions. >> >> Enjoy IETF 124! >> >> Megan Ferguson >> RFC Production Center >> >> > On Nov 1, 2025, at 1:23 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > 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]
