Dear Alanna, I have revised the last version of the document and all the changes are ok to me.
Thank you very much for your work. Regards, Fernando. El jue, 24 jun 2021 a las 18:42, Rafa Marin-Lopez (<r...@um.es>) escribió: > Dear Alanna: > > Everything looks ok to me. Thank you very much for applying all the > changes. > > Best Regards. > > > El 23 jun 2021, a las 18:16, Alanna Paloma <apal...@amsl.com> escribió: > > Greetings Authors and *ADs, > > *ADs - Please respond to a) and b) below: > > a) Please review and approve of the changes from > “ipsec-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 > > b) 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 the files as > requested. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-lastdiff.html (last version to > this one) > > Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further > updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a > document is published as an RFC. > > We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status > page above prior to moving this document forward in the publication > process. > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061 > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/ap > > On Jun 21, 2021, at 8:49 AM, Rafa Marín López <r...@um.es> wrote: > > 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 <r...@um.es> escribió: > > Dear Alanna: > > Please see my comments inline > > El 16 jun 2021, a las 21:29, Alanna Paloma <apal...@amsl.com> 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 <gab...@um.es> wrote: > > Hi Diego. > > El 14 jun 2021, a las 16:47, Diego R. Lopez <diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com> > 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: diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com > Mobile: +34 682 051 091 > ---------------------------------- > > On 14/06/2021, 09:24, "I2nsf on behalf of Rafa Marin-Lopez" < > i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of r...@um.es> 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: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org > 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: r...@um.es, gab...@um.es, fernando.perenig...@cud.upct.es > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org, i2nsf-...@ietf.org, i2nsf-cha...@ietf.org, > ynir.i...@gmail.com > > 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, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org 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: r...@um.es > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > 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 > I2nsf@ietf.org > 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: gab...@um.es > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 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: r...@um.es > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org > 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: r...@um.es > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 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: r...@um.es <r...@um.es> > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Pereñíguez García, PhD Department of Engineering and Applied Technologies University Defense Center, (CUD), Spanish Air Force Academy, MDE-UPCT C/ Coronel Lopez Peña, s/n, 30720, San Javier, Murcia - SPAIN Tel: +34 968 189 946 Fax: +34 968 189 970 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
