Hi Tom, Here is the revision of CFI with your comments: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-23
Patrick and I have reflected your comments on the revision, and I attach the revision letter. Thanks. Best Regards, Paul On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 1:40 AM t petch <ie...@btconnect.com> 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. > > 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 >
Revision-Letter-for-Consumer-Facing Interface-23.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
