Re: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-08

"Adrian Farrel" <> Sat, 14 December 2019 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421F912004F for <>; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 11:40:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.497
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mhehCExQbAyt for <>; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 11:40:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01085120046 for <>; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 11:40:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xBEJduXw010793; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 19:39:56 GMT
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D772203B; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 19:39:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E8992203A; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 19:39:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xBEJdtZQ002676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 14 Dec 2019 19:39:55 GMT
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Linda Dunbar'" <>, <>
Cc: "'Yoav Nir'" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 19:39:53 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <016a01d5b2b6$4238fa40$c6aaeec0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_016B_01D5B2B6.4238FA40"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGti98oFkHtVJ/UZeZQd4DgsNriUKgKS82Q
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--19.016-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--19.016-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--19.015900-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 2b72VDjmVAVcrwWaIMiZVdsqGrxURSox8SG6UPAYXWw4zRqVgiL30+DT YjejIZTw1l38M6aWfEgQ6PLhGF6D81W+3CY6RFNx9PJCktWcPGS5PY6WqT/Y1NqLN7nigLBUIfZ jRfGTydgG2HMvWEJenoNSzGIfkv3csoBHc6nrP19V+eR2ta3zhCNvqM5/miSs4h8r8l3l4eYO9z +P2gwiBSHji1Rf3pHQgqI7yjbVyzQF8ej9cf97VVBxMAsfnenbmrcavHa2c/4ZSUX8zcPGn8nlJ e2gk8vIkiuQrrCJIAmHOAseoIzKqBNvnR3dZuEWzzU2+MLrDVQdTvK9m3LsxmtoGpp5OkigwFk8 4lhmgzxemWwoCXDj9WJtBO3fjIWifrIEvEZ1RtG/EmJOTBHHMn+p0sPBoJwXWHGJY8KbuMRa9oW cYwi86rdzeFVfj3XZQ5xm+2gcNvNJ+yFS2sBijFAHcjcVOt7GLfnzGsjzkkCQgeuUY0WN7MGcvc Boab2jSFyaPnhpvhSqsuk6UYOGoUjEG1nN31qqKv1AcleBpET0UUnpMRBM74S/TV9k6ppA5GzAE k8IK4iE2ut4EHvMmSedFazcPTOJTYobelxUX4F1sN7aVpL9gaRcnmyiScEKaEIbyoxb4rKp6p4Q jZ1mbbt4BAaULwAVWhGNaN88N8x8P5IXGTeeMLDqiJd7UxUgePGAeSn124LzXLbkJWzoJIEZIwr IYnDBdDwP5ItpCOxLVOP6Sq/6G4mZnwWWIBq/vy1D537721dh9/cDmdaORiH9ExNVXbjbGfESeH 6pl4ZHZg0gWH5yUdo4FZoSpQ8YA1RJp09V8dKAMuqetGVettUTseZWdUYe/sToY2qzpx5oFT3Kz pHqEyIuW4R8am3tKI0bSAUfpHB7f8rdN44wGPDwtMbghH1m2ZH2GlUy1CI3Rf7EHLENfsk/rkkH 2z88YPLibVmXABo=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-08
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "*I2NSF: Interface to Network Security Functions mailing list*" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 19:40:05 -0000



This is a long document and I can't say I have read it in detail. But what I
have seen looks reasonable. I don't object to publication.


A couple of things to note:


I suggest putting in an RFC Editor Note to ask that all instances of
"draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability" including those in YANG reference clauses are
updated to the RFC that the draft will become before this document reaches
RFC. The reason for suggesting this is that those mentions don't appear as
square bracket references so might get missed. There are some others drafts
in the same situation, but I don't know if they'll become RFCs first.


The reference draft-ietf-supa-generic-policy-info-model is probably a bad
idea. I think the draft is dead. The only mention is in section 3, and here
you seem to have copied the relevant text anyway. Maybe just include that
text as your own definitions, and move on?


Idnits has a lot to say. You should sort it out.

The 'standard' way of handling references from with the YANG model, where
you can't include square brackets, is to put a piece of text at the top
(outside the model) that says: "This model makes reference to [foo], [bar],
and [fishcake]."

You can easily delete section 2.


It would be nice if the figures were directly referenced from the text.
Instead of "This YANG tree diagram shows." say "The YANG tree diagram in
Figure x shows."





From: I2nsf <> On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: 03 December 2019 22:23
Cc: Yoav Nir <>
Subject: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for



Hello Working Group, 


Many thanks to the authors of draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm to
address all the comments from YANG Doctor review. 


This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call on



This poll runs until Jan 6, 2020 (considering many people taking Christmas
to New Year off). 


We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to
this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF
IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, please
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from
all the Authors and Contributors.


If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in
conformance with IETF rules.


Thank you. 


Linda & Yoav