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

Hi Tom,
Since Paul Wouters did not CC the i2nsf mailing-list for his NO OBJECTION,
you could not see his response.
I have forwarded his response to you just before.

If you have something more about CFI, please let me know.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

2022년 8월 6일 (토) 오전 12:50, t petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>님이 작성:

> On 03/08/2022 17:41, t petch 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.
>
> Looking through the e-mails, I found a most helpful one from March
> addressing Ben's comments on capabiity (yes, not nsf, not cfi).
>
> Paul posted 25mar22 asking Paul Wouters' (who had inherited Ben's
> DISCUSS) whether or not capability-29 addressed the DISCUSS.
>
> I cannot see any response to that on the I2NSF list.  There is a reply
> relating to nsf-monitoring 20apr22 but nothing I can see on capability.
>   Since the approval was announced I infer that the DISCUSS was amended
> but am curious why it did not make it to the list.
>
> The subject matter cuts across a number of I-D and so IMHO is relevant
> to consumer-facing (or customer-facing as I am wont to call it:-(
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> > 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
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>