Re: [I2nsf] WG Adoption call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-04

[Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong]

 Hi John,
Thanks for your constructive suggestions on our draft. :-)
We authors will clarify your suggestions on the next revision.

You can give us your advice on our next revision.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul


On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:46 AM, John Strassner  wrote:

> IMHO, the purpose of a WG adopting a draft is to acknowledge that the
> draft is a good starting point for the work that WG wants to accomplish. To
> be perfectly clear, I am NOT objecting on the completeness of the document.
> Rather, I am objecting on the technical correctness of the starting point.
>
> I do NOT feel that the proposed documents represent a good starting point.
> Ignoring things that can be easily fixed (e.g., grammar), there are a host
> of problems, such as:
>- what, exactly, is this draft trying to do? I thought I would see YANG
> for policy rules sent over the Consumer-Facing Interface.
>  Instead, I see the name of the interface, whose first element is
> multi-tenancy, that also contains policies? Policies do not care
>  about multi-tenancy. They do care about domains. The organization of
> the YANG is incorrect.
>- sec 4: in the ieft-i2nsf-cf-interface module
>   - why is multi-tenancy at the top of the tree? Shouldn't a DOMAIN
> be able to have multiple tenants?
>   - why does a domain have an authentication-method? First, multiple
> such methods should be able to be used. Second, how would a domain know
> what an authentication method even is?
>   - why is tenant a sibling of domain, and not a child?
>   - why is domain a leaf within policy-tenant? This should be a
> reference, and why doesn't domain have a reference to policy-tenant?
>   - policy roles have nothing to do with multi-tenancy - why are they
> here?
>
>  I could go on, but even the above means that the rest of the YANG will be
> wrong.
>
> Therefore, the document is NOT a good starting point, and will NOT
> accelerate the path to getting a good RFC.
>
> regards,
> John
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Linda Dunbar 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The authors of I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facin
>> g-interface-dm-04
>>
>>
>>
>> Have requested working group adoption of this draft.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please bear in mind that WG Adoption doesn’t mean that the draft current
>> content is ready, WG Adoption only means that it is a good basis for a
>> working group to work on.
>>
>>
>>
>> While all feedback is helpful, comments pro or con with explanations are
>> much more helpful than just "yes please" or "no thank you".
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Linda & Yoav
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> I2nsf mailing list
>> I2nsf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> regards,
> John
>
> ___
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>
>


-- 
===
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: jaehoon.p...@gmail.com, paulje...@skku.edu
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] WG Adoption call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-04

[Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong]

Hi John,
Thanks for your good suggestions on our draft. :-)
We authors will clarify your suggestions on the next revision except the OO
design for the YANG data model.
The OO design takes time, so we will try to address it later.

You can suggest the good OO design based on our next revision.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:31 AM, John Strassner  wrote:

> IMHO, the purpose of a WG adopting a draft is to acknowledge that the
> draft is a good starting point for the work that WG wants to accomplish. To
> be perfectly clear, I am NOT objecting on the completeness of the document.
> Rather, I am objecting on the technical correctness of the starting point.
>
> I do NOT feel that the proposed documents represent a good starting point.
> Ignoring things that can be easily fixed (e.g., grammar), there are a host
> of problems, such as:
>
>- sec 4: it is unclear what is meant by "Objectives", see below
>   - sec 4.1 does NOT define what an I2NSF SecurityPolicyRule is, or
> what its objective is
>   - secs 4.2 and 4.3 do provide definitions of events and conditions
> (though their grammar needs improvement)
>   - sec 4.4 provides a superficial definition of an action that needs
> tightening up
>
> The above are troublesome, as all definitions are clearly defined in the
> terminology draft. For a long time now... :-( And I really don't understand
> why this section is labeled "Objectives". Objectives of what? An event? of
> the data model? something else?
>
>- sec 5.1:  I don't understand the design of the YANG module at all
>  - the ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface module appears to describe a
> policy rule, but is given the name of an interface. In addition, why does 
> generic-nsf
> contain a policy (i2nsf-security-policy)? Put another way, the name of
> the module is the name of an interface, but doesn't describe an interface,
> and more importantly,
> NSFs do NOT contain policy rules - they are sent policy rules by
> the policy engine
>  - Worse, why are the event, condition, and action containers NOT
> inside the policy rule?
>- Same problem for figures 5.2-5.4, plus other problems (e.g., why is
> the resolution strategy NOT a part of the policy???)
>- the design of the condition clause is not scalable. In an OO design,
> one does NOT simply list a hundred attributes in a class. We decided that
> the YANG module would be designed in an OO style.
>- same problem for the action clause
>
> Given the above, the rest of the YANG will be wrong.
>
> Therefore, the document is NOT a good starting point, and will NOT
> accelerate the path to getting a good RFC.
>
> regards,
> John
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Linda Dunbar 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The authors of I2NSF Network Security Functions-Facing Interface YANG
>> Data Model
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-inter
>> face-data-model-04
>>
>>
>>
>> Have requested working group adoption of this draft.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please bear in mind that WG Adoption doesn’t mean that the draft current
>> content is ready, WG Adoption only means that it is a good basis for a
>> working group to work on.
>>
>>
>>
>> While all feedback is helpful, comments pro or con with explanations are
>> much more helpful than just "yes please" or "no thank you".
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Linda & Yoav
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> I2nsf mailing list
>> I2nsf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> regards,
> John
>
> ___
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>
>


-- 
===
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: jaehoon.p...@gmail.com, paulje...@skku.edu
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] WG Adoption call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-04

[John Strassner]

IMHO, the purpose of a WG adopting a draft is to acknowledge that the draft
is a good starting point for the work that WG wants to accomplish. To be
perfectly clear, I am NOT objecting on the completeness of the document.
Rather, I am objecting on the technical correctness of the starting point.

I do NOT feel that the proposed documents represent a good starting point.
Ignoring things that can be easily fixed (e.g., grammar), there are a host
of problems, such as:

   - sec 4: it is unclear what is meant by "Objectives", see below
  - sec 4.1 does NOT define what an I2NSF SecurityPolicyRule is, or
what its objective is
  - secs 4.2 and 4.3 do provide definitions of events and conditions
(though their grammar needs improvement)
  - sec 4.4 provides a superficial definition of an action that needs
tightening up

The above are troublesome, as all definitions are clearly defined in the
terminology draft. For a long time now... :-( And I really don't understand
why this section is labeled "Objectives". Objectives of what? An event? of
the data model? something else?

   - sec 5.1:  I don't understand the design of the YANG module at all
 - the ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface module appears to describe a
policy rule, but is given the name of an interface. In addition, why
does generic-nsf
contain a policy (i2nsf-security-policy)? Put another way, the name of the
module is the name of an interface, but doesn't describe an interface, and
more importantly,
NSFs do NOT contain policy rules - they are sent policy rules by
the policy engine
 - Worse, why are the event, condition, and action containers NOT
inside the policy rule?
   - Same problem for figures 5.2-5.4, plus other problems (e.g., why is
the resolution strategy NOT a part of the policy???)
   - the design of the condition clause is not scalable. In an OO design,
one does NOT simply list a hundred attributes in a class. We decided that
the YANG module would be designed in an OO style.
   - same problem for the action clause

Given the above, the rest of the YANG will be wrong.

Therefore, the document is NOT a good starting point, and will NOT
accelerate the path to getting a good RFC.

regards,
John

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Linda Dunbar 
wrote:

>
>
> The authors of I2NSF Network Security Functions-Facing Interface YANG Data
> Model
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-
> interface-data-model-04
>
>
>
> Have requested working group adoption of this draft.
>
>
>
> Please bear in mind that WG Adoption doesn’t mean that the draft current
> content is ready, WG Adoption only means that it is a good basis for a
> working group to work on.
>
>
>
> While all feedback is helpful, comments pro or con with explanations are
> much more helpful than just "yes please" or "no thank you".
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Linda & Yoav
>
>
>
> ___
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>
>


-- 
regards,
John
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] WG Adoption call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-04

[elopez . ietf]

Yes, I support this draft, and thank the authors for their effort!
Cheers!Ed Lopez

On 1/26/2018 at 6:21 PM, "Linda Dunbar"  wrote:  
The authors of I2NSF Network Security Functions-Facing Interface YANG
Data Model 


https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-04

Have requested working group adoption of this draft.   
Please bear in mind that WG Adoption doesn’t mean that the draft
current content is ready, WG Adoption only means that it is a good
basis for a working group to work on. 
While all feedback is helpful, comments pro or con with explanations
are much more helpful than just "yes please" or "no thank you". 
Thank you.  
Linda & Yoav 

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] WG Adoption call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-04

[Jong-Hyouk Lee]

Hi, all 

I support the adoption of this draft.

Cheers.
--
Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random
Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University

#email: jonghy...@gmail.com
#webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon

> 2018. 2. 6. 21:56, Susan Hares  작성:
> 
> Linda and I2NSF WG:
>  
> I believe this drafts is ready for adoption.   I have followed this draft 
> since -00.txt.  This draft has sound implementation experience behind it.  
>  
> Cheerily, Susan Hares 
>  
> From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org ] 
> On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 6:22 PM
> To: i2nsf@ietf.org 
> Subject: [I2nsf] WG Adoption call for 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-04
>  
> 
>  
>  
> The authors of I2NSF Network Security Functions-Facing Interface YANG Data 
> Model
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-04
>  
> 
>  
> Have requested working group adoption of this draft.  
>  
> Please bear in mind that WG Adoption doesn’t mean that the draft current 
> content is ready, WG Adoption only means that it is a good basis for a 
> working group to work on.
>  
> While all feedback is helpful, comments pro or con with explanations are much 
> more helpful than just "yes please" or "no thank you".
>  
> Thank you. 
>  
> Linda & Yoav
>  
> ___
> 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

Re: [I2nsf] WG Adoption call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-04

[Susan Hares]

Linda and I2NSF WG:

 

I believe this drafts is ready for adoption.   I have followed this draft
since -00.txt.  This draft has sound implementation experience behind it.  

 

Cheerily, Susan Hares 

 

From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 6:22 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: [I2nsf] WG Adoption call for
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-
04

 

 

The authors of I2NSF Network Security Functions-Facing Interface YANG Data
Model

 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-
04

 

Have requested working group adoption of this draft.  

 

Please bear in mind that WG Adoption doesn't mean that the draft current
content is ready, WG Adoption only means that it is a good basis for a
working group to work on.

 

While all feedback is helpful, comments pro or con with explanations are
much more helpful than just "yes please" or "no thank you".

 

Thank you. 

 

Linda & Yoav

 

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf