On 21/03/2022 16:41, Roman Danyliw wrote:
Hi!
(Aside: There is some confusing threading because this message is on the public
i2nsf@ mailing list, but it originated from a private offlist discussion where
additional discussion is occurring).
I would benefit from some background on how Zahed’s
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/ballot/#draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model_zaheduzzaman-sarker)
inquiry about QUIC support translates into generic hurdle placed in front of
any Yang modules. My understanding of this DISCUSS point is that it is
inquiring why a security data model that allows filtering/selection of network
traffic (in Yang or otherwise) doesn’t include a representation for a widely
used protocol (QUIC). A related issue is that of timing – the data model work
started before the protocol in question existed (QUIC). This feedback (of QUIC
missing) would seem to have been equally fair for a MIB, JSON, text file-based
data model facing the same timing challenge.
I know no more than I see on the I2NSF and Last Call lists but saw
Zahed's comment as a fair one for an AD to make, similar in kind to
those about the lack of coverage of POP3S or IMAPS or HTTP/2 support,
but with a simple resolution of adding a statement that QUIC was out of
scope at this time, a subject for future study. I see a lot of energy
going into QUIC and so think it worth acknowledging its existence (which
I would not say of some other protocols that may have been around for
longer).
Tom Petch
Roman
From: Susan Hares <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 6:02 AM
To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Zahed's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model
Roman:
This is an example of the hurdles placed in front of any Yang model.
During the original creation gathering of information for the yang model, quic
was not even a protocol.
Cheers,
Sue
From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 5:58 AM
To: Roman Danyliw
Cc:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zahed's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model
Hi Roman,
Patrick and I will think of how to support QUIC in the I2NSF Capability Data
Model
even though such a support of QUIC seems not to be straightforward.
Thanks.
Paul
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 6:42 PM Roman Danyliw
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi!
I've been working on getting the ADs to clear their DISCUSSes on
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model (and not worried about COMMENTs right
now). In chatting with Zahed:
** Per DISCUSS#1, he still wants to see the QUIC language her noted (per
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/LdSfbPOx4GVqL0fPP6I1rpuMANg/).
That isn't in -26.
** He has confirmed that his DISCUSS#2 (on VoLTE) is resolved in -26. Thanks.
** Per DISCUSS#3, he would clear his DISCUSS on disclaimer language similar to
QUIC on HTTP/3.
Thanks,
Roman
_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
