Dear Paloma:
We have just found this errata in the updated reference
[ITU-T.X.690]
"Recommendation
International Telecommunication Untion, "Information
Technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic
Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and
Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)",
ITU-T X.690", August 2015.
Recommendation
X.690, ISO/IEC 8825-1, February 2021.
Best Regards.
> El 18 jun 2021, a las 18:01, Rafa Marin-Lopez <[email protected]> escribió:
>
> Dear Alanna:
>
> Please see my comments inline
>
>> El 16 jun 2021, a las 21:29, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[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
>> <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.txt>
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf>
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html>
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml>
>>
>> The relevant diff files are posted here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html> (comprehensive diff)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-auth48diff.html
>> <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
>> <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]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Diego.
>>>
>>>> El 14 jun 2021, a las 16:47, Diego R. Lopez <[email protected]
>>>> <mailto:[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/
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/>
>>>>
>>>> e-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf>
------------------------------------------------------
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
