Hi Lars, Let me remind you of your action on this draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm/
We authors believe that we addressed your comments as much as possible. I hope this draft will move forward through your review and lifting up your block. Thanks. Best Regards, Paul On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:45 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < jaehoon.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Lars, > I sincerely appreciate your comment to improve our Consumer-Facing > Interface YANG Data Model. > I have addressed your comments with the following revision: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-28 > > Also, two more revisions have been posted to address other comments from > other ADs. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-29 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm- > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-29> > 30 > > I attach the revision letters. > > If you have further questions and comments, please let me know. > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Paul > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 6:43 PM Lars Eggert via Datatracker < > nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > >> Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-27: Discuss >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to >> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ >> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-27 >> >> CC @larseggert >> >> Thanks to Roni Even for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review >> ( >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/PrQuAtGM5yKx1cs4Upt2cRel9IA >> ). >> >> ## Discuss >> >> ### Section 4.4, paragraph 3 >> ``` >> URL: This field represents the URL or hostname. >> ``` >> Not a YANG expert, but I thought an inet:uri had to be an actual URI and >> hence >> cannot simply be a hostname string? >> >> ### Section 7.1, paragraph 7 >> ``` >> 3. The "https://www.sns-example1.com/"; and "https://www.sns- >> example2.com/" URLs are labeled as "sns-websites". >> >> 4. The "sip:al...@atlanta.com", "sip:bob@203.0.113.15", and >> "sip:ca...@chicago.com" SIP identities are labeled as >> "malicious- >> id". >> ``` >> Use actual RFC2606 example domain names and RFC5737 example IP addresses. >> Also in the XML in Figure 19 of course. >> >> ### Section 10.1, paragraph 43 >> ``` >> [MISPCORE] Dulaunoy, A. and A. Iklody, "MISP Core", >> commit 051e33b6711a660faf81733d825f1015aa0d301b, February >> 2022, <https://github.com/MISP/misp- >> rfc/blob/051e33b6711a660faf81733d825f1015aa0d301b/misp- >> core-format/raw.md.html>. >> >> [OPENIOC] Gibb, W., "OpenIOC 1.1 DRAFT", >> commit d42a8777708e171f8bdd3c2c9f8590c83488285d, August >> 2013, <https://github.com/fireeye/OpenIOC_1.1/blob/ >> d42a8777708e171f8bdd3c2c9f8590c83488285d/schemas/ioc.xsd>. >> ``` >> For discussion in the IESG. I don't think GitHub commits are appropriate >> normative references. >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> ## Comments >> >> ### DOWNREFs >> >> Possible DOWNREF from this Standards Track doc to `[OPENIOC]`. If so, the >> IESG >> needs to approve it. >> >> Possible DOWNREF from this Standards Track doc to `[MISPCORE]`. If so, >> the IESG >> needs to approve it. >> >> ### Inclusive language >> >> Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and >> more >> guidance: >> >> * Term `traditional`; alternatives might be `classic`, `classical`, >> `common`, >> `conventional`, `customary`, `fixed`, `habitual`, `historic`, >> `long-established`, `popular`, `prescribed`, `regular`, `rooted`, >> `time-honored`, `universal`, `widely used`, `widespread` >> >> ## Nits >> >> All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may >> choose to >> address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by >> automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so >> there >> will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what >> you >> did with these suggestions. >> >> ### Typos >> >> #### Section 6.1, paragraph 99 >> ``` >> - for an IP address, such as IPv4 adress and IPv6 address."; >> + for an IP address, such as IPv4 address and IPv6 address."; >> + + >> ``` >> >> #### Section 6.1, paragraph 121 >> ``` >> - category such as SNS sites, game sites, ecommerce >> + category such as SNS sites, game sites, e-commerce >> + + >> ``` >> >> #### Section 6.1, paragraph 135 >> ``` >> - gaming sites, ecommerce sites"; >> + gaming sites, e-commerce sites"; >> + + >> ``` >> >> ### URLs >> >> These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS: >> >> * >> http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/country_codes/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.htm >> * http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/country_codes.htm#2012_iso3166-2 >> >> ### Grammar/style >> >> #### Section 3.1, paragraph 1 >> ``` >> sf-capability-data-model]. Case (anti-virus): This field represents the >> conf >> ^^^^^^^^^^ >> ``` >> This word is normally spelled as one. >> >> #### Section 3.2, paragraph 1 >> ``` >> This information describes a caller id or receiver id in order to >> prevent an >> ^^ >> ``` >> This abbreviation for "identification" is spelled all-uppercase. >> >> #### Section 3.2, paragraph 1 >> ``` >> on describes a caller id or receiver id in order to prevent any exploits >> (or >> ^^ >> ``` >> This abbreviation for "identification" is spelled all-uppercase. >> >> #### Section 3.2, paragraph 3 >> ``` >> ow-rate-threshold? uint64 | +--rw anti-virus | | +--rw profile* string | >> | +- >> ^^^^^^^^^^ >> ``` >> This word is normally spelled as one. >> >> #### Section 3.2, paragraph 9 >> ``` >> he Action object SHALL have following information: Primary-action: This >> fiel >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> ``` >> The article "the" may be missing. >> >> #### Section 4, paragraph 3 >> ``` >> , e.g., 'Dublin', 'New York', and 'Sao Paulo'. Range-ipv4-address: This >> repre >> ^^^^^^^^^ >> ``` >> Did you mean "São Paulo" (= city in Brazil)? >> >> #### Section 4.5, paragraph 1 >> ``` >> is field is not mandatory but recommended to be used as it is helpful for >> fut >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> ``` >> The verb "recommended" is used with the gerund form. >> >> #### Section 5.1, paragraph 4 >> ``` >> er-Facing Interface, this document provide examples for security policy >> rules >> ^^^^^^^ >> ``` >> The verb "provide" is plural. Did you mean: "provides"? Did you use a verb >> instead of a noun? >> >> #### Section 6.1, paragraph 68 >> ``` >> nclude 'Dublin', 'New York', and 'Sao Paulo'."; } uses ip-address-info{ >> refin >> ^^^^^^^^^ >> ``` >> Did you mean "São Paulo" (= city in Brazil)? >> >> #### Section 6.1, paragraph 94 >> ``` >> ck mitigation."; } } } container anti-virus { description "A condition >> for an >> ^^^^^^^^^^ >> ``` >> This word is normally spelled as one. >> >> #### Section 6.1, paragraph 94 >> ``` >> us { description "A condition for anti-virus"; leaf-list profile { type >> strin >> ^^^^^^^^^^ >> ``` >> This word is normally spelled as one. >> >> #### Section 6.1, paragraph 97 >> ``` >> hs are filenames/paths to be excluded and relative ones are interpreted >> as gl >> ^^^^ >> ``` >> Use a comma before "and" if it connects two independent clauses (unless >> they >> are closely connected and short). >> >> #### Section 6.1, paragraph 114 >> ``` >> ed as a binary to accommodate any kind of a payload type such as HTTP, >> HTTPS, >> ^^^^^^^^^ >> ``` >> If "kind" is a classification term, "a" is not necessary. Use "kind of". >> (The >> phrases "kind of" and "sort of" are informal if they mean "to some >> extent".). >> >> #### Section 6.1, paragraph 114 >> ``` >> 5 bytes of the payload. This field accept values greater than or equal to >> th >> ^^^^^^ >> ``` >> The verb "accept" is plural. Did you mean: "accepts"? Did you use a verb >> instead of a noun? >> >> ## Notes >> >> This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can >> use the >> [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into >> individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the >> [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. >> >> [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md >> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments >> [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
