Hi Tom, Since Paul Wouters did not CC the i2nsf mailing-list for his NO OBJECTION, you could not see his response. I have forwarded his response to you just before.
If you have something more about CFI, please let me know. Thanks. Best Regards, Paul 2022년 8월 6일 (토) 오전 12:50, t petch <ie...@btconnect.com>님이 작성: > On 03/08/2022 17:41, t petch wrote: > > On 12/07/2022 18:44, Linda Dunbar wrote: > >> Sue, > >> > >> Thank you very much for the offer. > >> > >> The unsolved comments are from Tom Petch: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for > >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16< > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/d_Wk5fH35Jo_cdz4D0QZN5VNhFA/> > >> > >> There are several responses to address Tom Petch's comments. Just Tom > >> hasn't sent feedback if he is satisfied with the response. > > > > Weelll, probably as satisfied as I am going to get. > > Looking through the e-mails, I found a most helpful one from March > addressing Ben's comments on capabiity (yes, not nsf, not cfi). > > Paul posted 25mar22 asking Paul Wouters' (who had inherited Ben's > DISCUSS) whether or not capability-29 addressed the DISCUSS. > > I cannot see any response to that on the I2NSF list. There is a reply > relating to nsf-monitoring 20apr22 but nothing I can see on capability. > Since the approval was announced I infer that the DISCUSS was amended > but am curious why it did not make it to the list. > > The subject matter cuts across a number of I-D and so IMHO is relevant > to consumer-facing (or customer-facing as I am wont to call it:-( > > Tom Petch > > > > I have reviewed cfi (customer facing interface-dm)-22 and compared some > > of it with capability-32. I have not - but hope to - compare against > > nsf-facing; nor have I re-read all the posts to the list but will. > > > > I do think that cfi is now in much better shape. I do see capability as > > the key, the base, set of definitions against which the others should be > > judged. capability says whether or not the box can do it, the others > > tell you how to do it. > > > > With that in mind, I am unconvinced about the response to my comments > > about icmp. The treatment is different. capability deals in > > icmpv4/icmpv6, type/code; cfi deals in echo/echo-reply which is the sort > > of user interface I am used to and would expect a security practitioner > > to be familiar with so some words about the mapping, referring to the > > IANA website for all the detail, could help users. I would put that in > > the body of the text not the YANG module > > > > Likewise, cfi has primary and secondary action which makes a lot of > > sense but what is the capability that makes that possible? capability > > has ingress-action, egress-action, default-action which seems a > > different axis to me. Again, some words about how the two relate could > > help, in the body of the document. > > > > Again continent is present in cfi but not in capability. Can a user > > tell if the capability is present? I expect not; as ever, worth a note. > > > > signature-set and signature-type sound the same but seem different. This > > is an aspect of security that I am not familiar with, at least not in > > those terms. > > > > Finally, there are some minor editorial glitches. > > > > RFC8075 I see in the YANG module; it needs adding to the I-D References. > > > > page 17 text version last sentence I cannot parse; perhaps a missing > > preposition > > > > the two rate-limit objects could do with units - I note that they are > > present in the examples > > > > page 55 text version [STIX] looks like an XML anchor but YANG modules > > must be plain text. > > > > Tom Petch > > > >> > >> Linda > >> > >> From: Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 12:21 PM > >> To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@futurewei.com>; i2nsf@ietf.org > >> Subject: RE: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC > >> for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm > >> > >> Linda: > >> > >> I will review the document by Thursday (7/14) and send in a review of > >> the document. Would you let me know what WG LC comments were not > >> addressed? > >> > >> Cheers, Sue > >> > >> From: I2nsf <i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org>> On > >> Behalf Of Linda Dunbar > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 1:17 PM > >> To: i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org> > >> Subject: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for > >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm > >> > >> > >> I2NF WG, > >> > >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm WGLC was inconclusive > >> due to lack of support and some LC comments not properly addressed. > >> There appeared to be limited reviews of the document during the WGLC > >> See the discussion history: [I2nsf] WGLC for > >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16< > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fi2nsf%2FMFOohjnJ9fbylLB9eyccMRhrp04%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cc95feb0ac382419474b808da642adfd0%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637932432560667469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=f9Jlz0HgQw7NO%2BKer356WyaN9toprO8WCPEUBGhkAXI%3D&reserved=0 > > > >> > >> > >> To proceed to publication more reviews and support from the WG for > >> publication is needed. > >> We really appreciate more people reviewing the document, especially > >> the people who are not the authors. > >> > >> Thank you > >> Linda Dunbar > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> I2nsf mailing list > >> I2nsf@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf > >> > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
