Hi Acee, I will let the module prologue in the next revised draft match the suggested template in RFC 8407.
Yes, this draft was supported by a funding project from the Korea government organization called MSIT (Ministry of Science and ICT) as follows: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This work was supported by Institute of Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea MSIT (Ministry of Science and ICT) (R-20160222-002755, Cloud based Security Intelligence Technology Development for the Customized Security Service Provisioning). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, the above funding project supported the implementation of an I2NSF Security Controller. When the revision is done, I will let you know. Thanks. Best Regards, Paul On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:28 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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] > 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], [email protected] > Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php > <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> > -- =========================== Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Software Sungkyunkwan University Office: +82-31-299-4957 Email: [email protected], [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
