Re: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm

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 <shares@ndzh.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 12:21 PM
> To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@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-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf-bounces@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
>