Re: [I2nsf] [AD] AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

[Rafa Marin-Lopez <[e-mail]>]

Dear Alanna:

Everything looks ok to me. Thank you very much for applying all the changes.

Best Regards.


> El 23 jun 2021, a las 18:16, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> escribió:
> 
> Greetings Authors and *ADs,
> 
> *ADs - Please respond to a) and b) below:
> 
> a) Please review and approve of the changes from 
> “ipsec-protocol-parameters” to “Ipsec-protocol-params” in Sections 
> 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.3.1, and 5.3.3 in the diff file below.
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-ad-diff.html
> 
> b) Please confirm the following:
> 
>>> 8) <!--[rfced] In the Security Considerations section, the text 
>>> does not exactly match what appears on 
>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>. 
>>> Paragraph 5 of the YANG boilerplate text is missing. This seems 
>>> intentional, but we'd like to confirm that this is correct.
>>> —>
>> 
>> [Authors] Yes, this is correct.
> 
> Authors - Thank you for your replies.  We have updated the files as requested.
> 
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf
> 
> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-lastdiff.html (last version to this one)
> 
> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further
> updates you may have.  Note that we do not make changes once a
> document is published as an RFC.
> 
> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status
> page above prior to moving this document forward in the publication
> process.
> 
> 
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
>> On Jun 21, 2021, at 8:49 AM, Rafa Marín López <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Paloma:
>> 
>> We have just found this errata in the updated reference 
>> 
>> [ITU-T.X.690]
>> 
>> "Recommendation
>> 
>> 
>> International Telecommunication Untion, "Information
>>              Technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic
>>              Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and
>>              Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)",
>> ITU-T X.690", August 2015. 
>> Recommendation
>>              X.690, ISO/IEC 8825-1, February 2021.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best Regards.
>> 
>>> El 18 jun 2021, a las 18:01, Rafa Marin-Lopez <[e-mail]> escribió:
>>> 
>>> Dear Alanna:
>>> 
>>> Please see my comments inline
>>> 
>>>> El 16 jun 2021, a las 21:29, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> escribió:
>>>> 
>>>> Authors and *ADs, 
>>>> 
>>>> *ADs - Please review and approve the changes from “ipse-protocol-parameters” to
>>>> “Ipsec-protocol-params” in Sections 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.3.1, and 5.3.3 in the diff file below.
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-ad-diff.html
>>>> 
>>>> Additionally, please confirm the following:
>>>> 
>>>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] In the Security Considerations section, the text 
>>>>>> does not exactly match what appears on 
>>>>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>. 
>>>>>> Paragraph 5 of the YANG boilerplate text is missing. This seems 
>>>>>> intentional, but we'd like to confirm that this is correct.
>>>>>> —>
>>>>> 
>>>>> [Authors] Yes, this is correct.
>>>> 
>>>> Authors - Thank you for your replies.  We have updated as requested.
>>> 
>>> Thank you very much for your effort.
>>>> 
>>>> We have one additional question:
>>>> 
>>>> <!--[rfced] RFC 2247 is listed as a normative reference to the YANG module                      
>>>> in Section 5.2.3, but it is not referenced in the module. May we remove                         
>>>> it as a reference, or where should it be cited?--> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, please remove the reference. It is not used.
>>>> 
>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.txt
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml
>>>> 
>>>> The relevant diff files are posted here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061
>>> 
>>> I have been checking this and I have a comment due to the new name of the document.
>>> 
>>> The three YANG modules still have:
>>> 
>>> reference
>>>         "RFC 
>>> XXXX: 9061:
>>> Software-Defined Networking
>>>                    (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection.”;
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Shouldn’t they be ?
>>> 
>>> reference
>>>         "RFC 
>>> XXXX: 9061: A YANG Data Model for IPsec Flow Protection Based on Software-Defined Networking (SDN).";
>>> 
>>> Best Regards and thank you.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 15, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Gabriel Lopez <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Diego.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> El 14 jun 2021, a las 16:47, Diego R. Lopez <[e-mail]> escribió:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It looks reasonable to me, but I wonder whether in order to avoid the stacking of hyphenated qualifiers we could use:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A YANG Data Model for IPsec Flow Protection based on Software-Defined Networking (SDN)
>>>>> 
>>>>> The title seems ok to me.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards, Gabi. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Be goode,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dr Diego R. Lopez
>>>>>> Telefonica I+D
>>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/ 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> e-mail: [e-mail]
>>>>>> Mobile:  [phone]
>>>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 14/06/2021, 09:24, "I2nsf on behalf of Rafa Marin-Lopez" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear I2NSF WG members:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We have received a suggestion from the RFC editor about a possible change in the title:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection —>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A YANG Data Model for Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We think this is reasonable and it is inline with the document.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you do not have any objection, we can apply this change. Any thoughts?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best Regards.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> De: [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Asunto: Re: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
>>>>>>> Fecha: 10 de junio de 2021, 22:58:29 CEST
>>>>>>> Para: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Authors,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] We note that most of the recently published RFCs containing 
>>>>>>> YANG modules format their titles as "A YANG Data Model for...", for example: 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  RFC 8022 - A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
>>>>>>>  RFC 7407 - A YANG Data Model for SNMP Configuration
>>>>>>>  RFC 7317 - A YANG Data Model for System Management
>>>>>>>  RFC 7277 - A YANG Data Model for IP Management
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please consider whether the title of this document should be updated.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we change "while" to "whereas" here?
>>>>>>> This would make it clear that the intended meaning is a contrast
>>>>>>> rather than "at the same time".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> Therefore, the NSF will only have support for
>>>>>>> IPsec while key management functionality is moved to the I2NSF
>>>>>>> Controller.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] We see a number of author-inserted comments in the .xml 
>>>>>>> file for this document. We are unsure if these have been resolved. 
>>>>>>> Please review and let us know if these can be deleted or if they need 
>>>>>>> to be addressed.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI: Note that the YANG modules have been updated per 
>>>>>>> the formatting option of pyang.  Please let us know any concerns.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] In Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.3, should "rw enable?"
>>>>>>> and "leaf enable" be "rw enabled?" (as used in RFC 8340 ad most
>>>>>>> published RFCs) and "leaf enabled" (as used in most published RFCs)?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> rw enable?   boolean
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> leaf enable {
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] RFC 2560 is referenced in the YANG module in Section 5.2.3
>>>>>>> but is not mentioned anywhere else in the text. May we add it as a
>>>>>>> Normative Reference and to the introductory text in Section 5.2.3?
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] In tree diagram in Section 5.3.1, the two lines that 
>>>>>>> include "ipsec-protocol-parameters" are one character too long to 
>>>>>>> fit in the space allowed in the txt output file. Please let us know
>>>>>>> how to adjust this so that it will fit.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] In the Security Considerations section, the text 
>>>>>>> does not exactly match what appears on 
>>>>>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>. 
>>>>>>> Paragraph 5 of the YANG boilerplate text is missing. This seems 
>>>>>>> intentional, but we'd like to confirm that this is correct.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] The following reference has been superseded 
>>>>>>> by a 2021 version.  Would you like for it to be updated?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> [ITU-T.X.690]
>>>>>>>            "Recommendation ITU-T X.690", August 2015.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2021 version:
>>>>>>> [ITU-T.X.690]
>>>>>>>            International Telecommunication Union, "Information
>>>>>>>            technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic
>>>>>>>            Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and
>>>>>>>            Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation
>>>>>>>            X.690, ISO/IEC 8825-1, February 2021.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] Should "SaaS" be expanded as "Software as a Service" 
>>>>>>> or "Storage as a Service"?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> For example, SD-WAN technologies are providing
>>>>>>> dynamic and on-demand VPN connections between branch offices, or
>>>>>>> between branches and SaaS cloud services. 
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of 
>>>>>>> the online Style Guide 
>>>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let 
>>>>>>> us know if any changes are needed. 
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap/jm
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 6/10/21 3:55 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Updated 2021/06/10
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> RFC Author(s):
>>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
>>>>>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
>>>>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
>>>>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
>>>>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
>>>>>>> your approval.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Planning your review 
>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  RFC Editor questions
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
>>>>>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  Changes submitted by coauthors 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
>>>>>>> coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
>>>>>>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  Content 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
>>>>>>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
>>>>>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>>>>>>> - contact information
>>>>>>> - references
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  Copyright notices and legends
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>>>>>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
>>>>>>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  Semantic markup
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
>>>>>>> content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
>>>>>>> and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
>>>>>>> <https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html>.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  Formatted output
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
>>>>>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
>>>>>>> reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
>>>>>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Submitting changes
>>>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email with one of the following, 
>>>>>>> using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see 
>>>>>>> your changes:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> An update to the provided XML file
>>>>>>> — OR —
>>>>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>>> old text
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>> new text
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
>>>>>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
>>>>>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
>>>>>>> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
>>>>>>> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Approving for publication
>>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email s
>>>>>>> tating that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’
>>>>>>> as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see your approval.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Files 
>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The files are available here:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.txt
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Diff of the XML: 
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-xmldiff1.html
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
>>>>>>> diff files of the XML.  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.original.v2v3.xml 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
>>>>>>> only: 
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.form.xml
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>> RFC9061 (draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Title            : Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection
>>>>>>> Author(s)        : R. Marin-Lopez, G. Lopez-Millan, F. Pereniguez-Garcia
>>>>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Linda Dunbar, Yoav Nir
>>>>>>> Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Benjamin Kaduk
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD
>>>>>> Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC)
>>>>>> Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
>>>>>> 30100 Murcia - Spain
>>>>>> Telf: [phone] Fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> I2nsf mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Gabriel López Millán
>>>>> Departamento de Ingeniería de la Información y las Comunicaciones
>>>>> University of Murcia
>>>>> Spain
>>>>> Tel: [phone]
>>>>> Fax: [phone]
>>>>> email: [e-mail]
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>> Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD
>>> Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC)
>>> Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
>>> 30100 Murcia - Spain
>>> Telf: [phone] Fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> I2nsf mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD
>> Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC)
>> Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
>> 30100 Murcia - Spain
>> Telf: [phone] Fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 

-------------------------------------------------------
Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD
Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC)
Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
30100 Murcia - Spain
Telf: [phone] Fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------