Hi, I have reviewed the module in draft-05. Thanks for the revision letter. That really helped make the review go fast. All my draft-04 comments have been addressed.
I cannot figure out how to enter a new review in the IETF pages (even logged in), so it is attached here. pyang is reporting some minor style issues. Status: Ready with nits (see attached file) Andy On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 7:15 AM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andy, > Patrick and I have addressed your comments on the following revision: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/ > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-05 > > I attach the revision letter to explain how to address your comments on > the revision. > > If you have further comments, please let me know. > > If you are satisfied with our revision, please update the YANG doctor > review status in the following link: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/ > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Paul > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 3:03 AM Andy Bierman via Datatracker < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Reviewer: Andy Bierman >> Review result: Almost Ready >> >> >> >> Major Issues: >> >> - None >> >> Moderate Issues: >> >> - top-level 'counters' container does not follow naming conventions. >> Should start with 'i2nsf', probably 'i2nsf-state' >> >> - There do not seem to be any writable objects in the /counters >> subtree so this container should have a 'config false' statement >> >> - top-level typedef and grouping description-stmts are self-referential >> and not useful. Need to rewrite description-stmts and/or add >> reference-stmts as needed. >> >> - grouping common-monitoring-data/time-stamp >> Is this a different time stamp than the one in the NETCONF >> notification? >> The 'message generation time' sounds like the standard timestamp. >> Does this object represent the event detection time? >> >> - grouping i2nsf-system-alarm-type-content/usage >> - grouping i2nsf-system-alarm-type-content/threshold >> These are uint8 leafs with unclear descriptions. >> Not sure why uint8 is the appropriate type. >> Needs 1 or more of (reference, units, better description) >> >> - grouping traffic-rates >> Add a units statement to each leaf. Not sure what units to use >> but it should be consistent. (e.g, pps, bps used in descriptions >> should also be in a units-stmt) >> >> - grouping i2nsf-system-counter-type-content >> These counters should use the yang:counter32 type instead of uint32 >> >> - container counters/system-interface >> - container counters/nsf-firewall >> - container counters/nsf-policy-hits >> The descriptions are too terse and confusing, and need a rewrite. >> >> - container counters/nsf-firewall >> - container counters/nsf-policy-hits >> - uses i2nsf-nsf-counters-type-content; >> Many of the fields expanded from this grouping all say >> they refer to 'the packet'. Why are they in this global >> container of counters? E.g. (src-ip, dst-ip, src-port, dst-port) >> Not clear at all how the server is supposed to apply this >> grouping to these containers. >> >> - many leafs use "uint32" type for a rate. >> Should add a units-stmt >> >> - leaf counters/nsf-policy-hits/hit-times >> The purpose and type are confusing and generic. >> If this is a counter then use counter32 >> >> - cut-and-paste for notification-stmt content should be replaced >> with grouping/uses instead. Applies to the nsf-detection-* >> and the various logging notifications. Even a grouping that >> has 1 object in it is better than cut-and-paste 5+ times >> >> Minor Issues: >> >> - top-level identifiers are too generic >> should have 'i2nsf-' prefix to be more reusable outside this module >> >> - quite a lot of identities that an implementation is required to >> support. >> If this set of identities might change a lot faster than the >> notifications and counter objects, then consider putting them >> in a separate module >> >> - leaf with same type named differently; both intrusion-attack-type >> - nsf-detection-intrusion/sub-attack-type >> - nsf-log-intrusion/attack-type >> >> - quite a lot of notification event types for a server to implement >> and a user to manage. All are mandatory (no if-feature statements). >> Some such as nsf-detection-* subset are very similar. >> A section or table would be useful that showed the YANG notification >> names and their purpose -- maybe a reference to another RFC >> with more details >> >> - there seems to be notifications for intrusion events and then >> again for the logging of those events. This seems excessive >> but >> >> >> - grouping common-monitoring-data/time-stamp >> Is this a different time stamp than the one in the NETCONF >> notification? >> The 'message generation time' sounds like the standard timestamp. >> Is this event detection time? >> >> - grouping common-monitoring-data/module-name >> Is this a YANG module or some other type of module? >> >> - there is no way to configure which notifications should be generated >> or maybe how often. YANG Push has its own dampening-period. >> Since these are event stream subscriptions, not datastore >> subscriptions, >> YANG-Push does not apply to this document at all. >> >> If there are a lot of notifications then a server implementation >> might drop some >> >> - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content-extend/src-zone >> - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content-extend/src-zone >> These use type 'string'. Consider using a typedef that constrains >> the string. General comment where unconstrained string is used: >> The corner-case values such as empty string are often not allowed >> in implementations. >> >> >> - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content-extend/rule-id >> - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content-extend/rule-name >> - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content-extend/profile >> These objects seem to reference objects in another YANG module. >> If so, then leafref types might be more appropriate. >> >> - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content/rule-id >> - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content/rule-name >> - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content/profile >> - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content/raw-info >> These objects are cut-and-paste duplicates from >> grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content. They should >> be in a separate grouping used by both. Also applies >> to some other sets of objects >> >> - limits issues (e.g. current-session, maximum-session >> The type is uint8. This is only OK it is impossible for any >> implementation to ever have or want more than 255 of them. >> If some other RFC really does limit the values where uint8 >> is used, then that is OK. If so, a reference-stmt would help. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I2nsf mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >> > >
Status: Ready with nits Nits: pyang 2.4.0 --ietf reporting errors: [email protected]:47: warning: RFC 8407: 3.1: The IETF Trust Copyright statement seems to be missing (see pyang --ietf-help for details). [email protected]:1011: error: RFC 8407: 4.14: statement "grouping" must have a "description" substatement [email protected]:1016: error: keyword "description" not in canonical order, expected "type" (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1017: error: keyword "type" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1018: error: keyword "default" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1102: error: keyword "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1119: error: keyword "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1135: error: keyword "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1184: error: keyword "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1206: error: keyword "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1245: error: keyword "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1276: error: keyword "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1322: error: keyword "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1386: error: keyword "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1425: error: keyword "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1492: error: keyword "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1526: error: keyword "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1540: error: keyword "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1605: error: keyword "config" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1610: error: keyword "key" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1620: error: keyword "key" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1631: error: keyword "key" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1643: error: RFC 8407: 4.14: statement "container" must have a "description" substatement [email protected]:1654: error: keyword "key" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1780: error: keyword "description" not in canonical order, expected "type" (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1781: error: keyword "type" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1782: error: keyword "units" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12) [email protected]:1783: error: keyword "default" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
