Dear Alanna: Please see my comments inline
> El 16 jun 2021, a las 21:29, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> escribió: > > Authors and *ADs, > > *ADs - Please review and approve the changes from “ipse-protocol-parameters” > to > “Ipsec-protocol-params” in Sections 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.3.1, and 5.3.3 in the > diff file below. > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-ad-diff.html > > Additionally, please confirm the following: > >>> 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. >>> —> >> >> [Authors] Yes, this is correct. > > Authors - Thank you for your replies. We have updated as requested. Thank you very much for your effort. > > We have one additional question: > > <!--[rfced] RFC 2247 is listed as a normative reference to the YANG module > > in Section 5.2.3, but it is not referenced in the module. May we remove > > it as a reference, or where should it be cited?--> Yes, please remove the reference. It is not used. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml > > The relevant diff files are posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 > changes) > > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061 I have been checking this and I have a comment due to the new name of the document. The three YANG modules still have: reference "RFC XXXX: 9061: Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection.”; Shouldn’t they be ? reference "RFC XXXX: 9061: A YANG Data Model for IPsec Flow Protection Based on Software-Defined Networking (SDN)."; Best Regards and thank you. > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/ap > >> On Jun 15, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Gabriel Lopez <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Diego. >> >>> El 14 jun 2021, a las 16:47, Diego R. Lopez <[email protected]> >>> escribió: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> It looks reasonable to me, but I wonder whether in order to avoid the >>> stacking of hyphenated qualifiers we could use: >>> >>> A YANG Data Model for IPsec Flow Protection based on Software-Defined >>> Networking (SDN) >> >> The title seems ok to me. >> >> Best regards, Gabi. >> >> >>> >>> Be goode, >>> >>> -- >>> "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" >>> >>> Dr Diego R. Lopez >>> Telefonica I+D >>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/ >>> >>> e-mail: [email protected] >>> Mobile: +34 682 051 091 >>> ---------------------------------- >>> >>> On 14/06/2021, 09:24, "I2nsf on behalf of Rafa Marin-Lopez" >>> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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] >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, >>> puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso >>> exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el >>> destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, >>> divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de >>> la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos >>> que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su >>> destrucción. >>> >>> The information contained in this transmission is privileged and >>> confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or >>> entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended >>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or >>> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>> this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the >>> sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete >>> it. >>> >>> Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, >>> pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo >>> da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário >>> indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou >>> cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. >>> Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique >>> imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I2nsf mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> Gabriel López Millán >> Departamento de Ingeniería de la Información y las Comunicaciones >> University of Murcia >> Spain >> Tel: +34 868888504 >> Fax: +34 868884151 >> email: [email protected] > ------------------------------------------------------- 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
