Hi Acee, I will let the module prologue in the next revised draft match the suggested template in RFC 8407.
I will leverage the existing IETF modiles for packet match specification and date/time specification in the next revision. When the revision is done, I will let you know. Thanks. Best Regards, Paul On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:51 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > > The module prologue still doesn’t match the suggested template in RFC 8407 > - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#appendix-B. Additionally, you > didn’t take my suggestion to leverage existing IETF models for packet match > specification - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8519/ and date/time > specification - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8177.txt. Did you look > at these? > > > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > > > > > > *From: *"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 10:10 AM > *To: *Acee Lindem <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"[email protected]" < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, YANG Doctors < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working Group Last Call Review for > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06 > > > > 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-nsf-facing-interface-dm-07 > > > > The following things have not been addressed yet due to the time > limitation. > > - The leveraging of the definitions in RFC 8519 for packet matching. > - The factoring of common types and identities into a common I2NSF types > module. > > These two will be reflected in the next revision. > > If you have further comments and questions, please let me know. > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Paul > > > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:03 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have reviewed this document as part of the YANG doctors directorate's > > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. > These > > comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects > of the > > IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included > in AD reviews > > during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these > comments > > just like any other early review comments. > > > > > > Document: draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06 > > Reviewer: Acee Lindem > > Review Date: June 22, 2019 > > Review Type: Working Group Last Call > > Intended Status: Standards Track > > Summary: Needs to go back to Working Group for rework and another WGLC > > > > Modules: "[email protected]" > > > > Tech Summary: The model defines different types of I2NSF security policy. > Each > > is comprised of an event, a condition, and an > action. There is > > significant overlap with other IETF models. > Within I2NSF, there > > is repetition of definitions which needs to > go into a common > > I2NSF types module. Additionally, the data > descriptions were > > were done quickly and never reviewed or > edited. I believe > > it needs to go back to the working group for > another revision and > > working group last call. > > . > > > > Major Comments: > > > > 1. Why don't you leverage the definitions in RFC 8519 for packet matching? > > We don't need all this defined again. > > > > 2. Date and time are defined in RFC 6991. Why don't those suffice? > > > > 3. Refer to the intervals as "time-intervals" rather than "time-zones". > > The term "time-zone" has a completely different connotation. > > > > 4. What the "acl-number"? Also, ACLs are named (RFC 8519). Also, why > > define all the packet matching and then reference an ACL. > > > > 5. The descriptions are very awkwardly worded and in many cases simply > > repeat the data node or identify description without hyphens. I > > started trying to fix this but it was too much. I'll pass for on > > for some examples. There are enough co-authors and contributors that > > one would expect much better. > > > > 6. There is overlap of definitions with the I2NSF capabilities draft. > > The common types and identities should be factored into a common > > I2NSF types module. > > > > 7. The "Security Considerations" in section 8 do not conform to the > > recommended template in > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security- > > guidelines> > > > > > > Minor Comments: > > > > 1. Section 3.1 should reference RFC8340 rather than attempting to > > include tree diagram formatting semantics. > > > > 2. "iiprfn" is a poor choice for default model prefix - I suggest > > "nsfintf". It is only one character longer and actually is expands > > to something meaningful. > > > > 3. RFC 2460 is obsoleted by RFC 8200. > > > > 4. RFC 791 is the wrong reference for IPv4 TOS. It should be RFC 1394. > > > > 5. What is the IGRP protocol? I'm familiar with EIGRP but not IGRP. > > > > 6. What is the skip protocol? Is this about skipping the check? If so, > > why is it needed. > > > > 7. Reference for IPv6 ICMP should be RFC 2463. > > > > 8. Why do you include Photuris definitions? Nobody uses this. > > > > 9. Note that all the keys for all 'config true' lists must be > > unique so your specification in the description as well as > > 'mandatory true' are redundant for the 'rules' list. This > > mistake is in other lists as well. > > > > 10. What is 'during' time? > > > > 11. What is a "security-grp"? Is this a security-group? > > > > 12. The module prologue doesn't match the example in Appendix B of > > RFC 8407. > > > > 13. There needs to be a good definition of absolute and periodic > > time in the descriptions. > > > > 14. The References do not include all the RFCs referenced by YANG > > model reference statements. > > > > Nits: Will send diff to authors and i2nsf chairs as example of review that > should be done on YANG documents prior to sending to YANG doctors. > > > > 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
