Lars, Could you take action on this revision according to your comments? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31
Thanks in advance. Best Regards, Paul On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 10:40 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Lars, > I have reflected your comments on the revision of I2NSF Consumer-Facing > Interface YANG Data Model Draft: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31 > > I put my answers below with the prefix of [PAUL]. > > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 6:50 PM Lars Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> the text in Section 4.4 still talks about hostnames. >> > => [PAUL] hostnames are removed for the URL-Group object. > >> >> The example in Section 7 still doesn't use an RFC5737 example address. >> > => This version uses only three IPv4 documentation address blocks such as > 192.0.2.0/24, 198.51.100.0/24, and 203.0.113.0/24. > If there are non-documentation addresses in this draft, please let > me know. > > Thanks a lot for the good feedback. > > Best Regards, > Paul > > >> Thanks, >> Lars >> >> On 11. May 2023, at 16:30, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> Lars, >> Even though you are very busy, please take a look at the revision and >> take action on our Consumer-Facing Interface Data Model draft: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm/ >> >> This draft is the last I2NSF draft to be standardized. >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> Best Regards, >> Paul >> >> >> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 5:27 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 < >>>> [email protected]> 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:[email protected]", "sip:[email protected]", and >>>>> "sip:[email protected]" 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 >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >>>>> >>>>
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
