Hi Acee, I believe that I have addressed your comments on I2NSF NSF-Facing Interface Data Model: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-08
If you are satisfied with the revision, could you update the Review result in the following page? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06-yangdoctors-lc-lindem-2019-06-22/ Thanks. Best Regards, Paul On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:37 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Acee, > I have reflected all your comments in the revised I-D of NSF-Facing > Interface YANG Data Model: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-08 > > I attach the revision letter to explain how I reflected your comments on > each of your comments. > > If you have questions, please let me know. > > Best Regards, > Paul > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:03 AM 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
