Hi Paul, Thank you for incorporating my comments and adding examples. Note that the module prologue still doesn’t match the suggested template in RFC 8407 - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#appendix-B
One question – I see this work is being done as part of a funding project. Does this include implementation of an I2NSF Security Controller? This would go further to validate the models than any reviews. Thanks, Acee From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, yang-doctors <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working Group Last Call Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04.txt Hi Acee, Here is the revision letter for the revised draft, reflecting your comments along with the revised draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-05 If you have further comments and questions, please let me know. Thanks. Best Regards, Paul On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:09 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Document: draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04.txt Reviewer: Acee Lindem Review Date: June 18, 2019 Review Type: Working Group Last Call Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: Not ready for publication Modules: "[email protected]" Tech Summary: The model is logically structured and seems to fulfill its intended purpose. The "Overview" section defines the usage, context, and usage of the model, i.e., it is limited to the NSF capability registration interface. However, the draft/model is very rough and not ready for working group last call. It seems that it has not gotten adequate review by the chairs and other members of the I2NSF Working Group. Major Comments: 1. The "Security Considerations" in section 8 do not conform to the recommended template in https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security- guidelines> 2. The document is missing XML or JSON examples. Minor Comments: 1. Section 3.1 should reference RFC8340 rather than attempting to include tree diagram formatting semantics. 2. Much of the text is very hard to read and awkwardly worded. There are some instances of sentence fragments. I starting trying to remedy this but found I was rewriting the entire draft and, in many cases, I wasn't sure my edits matched the original intent. I'll send the attached diff with suggested edits to the authors - it was too big to send to IETF lists. 3. "iicapa" is a poor choice for default model prefix - I suggest "nsfcap". It is just as concise but actually expands to something meaningful. 4. Similar to the text in the narrative sections of the draft, the text in the YANG model description statements is very awkwardly worded. 5. What are the references for the ipv4-sameip and ipv4-geoip conditions? 6. Add reference for egress-action-capa. 7. RFC 2460 is obsoleted by RFC 8200. 8. Suggest hyphenation of identifiers ipv4-same-ip, ipv4-geo-ip, and ipv6-ip-opts. 9. Suggest hyphenation of anti-virus and anti-ddos both in identifiers and in the text. 10. Suggest providing a definitions for absolute and periodic time. 11. The References do not include all the RFCs referenced by YANG model reference statements. Thanks, Acee _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf -- =========================== Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Software Sungkyunkwan University Office: +82-31-299-4957 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
