Dear I2NSF WG members: We have received a suggestion from the RFC editor about a possible change in the title:
Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection —> A YANG Data Model for Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection We think this is reasonable and it is inline with the document. If you do not have any objection, we can apply this change. Any thoughts? Best Regards. > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: [email protected] > Asunto: Re: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 > <draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14.txt> NOW AVAILABLE > Fecha: 10 de junio de 2021, 22:58:29 CEST > Para: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected] > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!--[rfced] We note that most of the recently published RFCs containing > YANG modules format their titles as "A YANG Data Model for...", for example: > > RFC 8022 - A YANG Data Model for Routing Management > RFC 7407 - A YANG Data Model for SNMP Configuration > RFC 7317 - A YANG Data Model for System Management > RFC 7277 - A YANG Data Model for IP Management > > Please consider whether the title of this document should be updated. > --> > > > 2) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we change "while" to "whereas" here? > This would make it clear that the intended meaning is a contrast > rather than "at the same time". > > Original: > Therefore, the NSF will only have support for > IPsec while key management functionality is moved to the I2NSF > Controller. > --> > > > 3) <!--[rfced] We see a number of author-inserted comments in the .xml > file for this document. We are unsure if these have been resolved. > Please review and let us know if these can be deleted or if they need > to be addressed. > --> > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI: Note that the YANG modules have been updated per > the formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns. > --> > > > 5) <!--[rfced] In Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.3, should "rw enable?" > and "leaf enable" be "rw enabled?" (as used in RFC 8340 ad most > published RFCs) and "leaf enabled" (as used in most published RFCs)? > > Original: > rw enable? boolean > ... > leaf enable { > --> > > > 6) <!--[rfced] RFC 2560 is referenced in the YANG module in Section 5.2.3 > but is not mentioned anywhere else in the text. May we add it as a > Normative Reference and to the introductory text in Section 5.2.3? > --> > > > 7) <!--[rfced] In tree diagram in Section 5.3.1, the two lines that > include "ipsec-protocol-parameters" are one character too long to > fit in the space allowed in the txt output file. Please let us know > how to adjust this so that it will fit. > --> > > > 8) <!--[rfced] In the Security Considerations section, the text > does not exactly match what appears on > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>. > Paragraph 5 of the YANG boilerplate text is missing. This seems > intentional, but we'd like to confirm that this is correct. > --> > > > 9) <!--[rfced] The following reference has been superseded > by a 2021 version. Would you like for it to be updated? > > Original: > [ITU-T.X.690] > "Recommendation ITU-T X.690", August 2015. > > 2021 version: > [ITU-T.X.690] > International Telecommunication Union, "Information > technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic > Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and > Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation > X.690, ISO/IEC 8825-1, February 2021. > --> > > > 10) <!--[rfced] Should "SaaS" be expanded as "Software as a Service" > or "Storage as a Service"? > > Original: > For example, SD-WAN technologies are providing > dynamic and on-demand VPN connections between branch offices, or > between branches and SaaS cloud services. > --> > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of > the online Style Guide > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let > us know if any changes are needed. > --> > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/ap/jm > > On 6/10/21 3:55 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2021/06/10 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email with one of the following, > using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see > your changes: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email s > tating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’ > as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-xmldiff1.html > > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own > diff files of the XML. > > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.original.v2v3.xml > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates > only: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.form.xml > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9061 (draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14) > > Title : Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow > Protection > Author(s) : R. Marin-Lopez, G. Lopez-Millan, F. Pereniguez-Garcia > WG Chair(s) : Linda Dunbar, Yoav Nir > Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Benjamin Kaduk > > ------------------------------------------------------- Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC) Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia 30100 Murcia - Spain Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
