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

["Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,
Thanks for your quick confirmation.

Linda,
Since Tom has confimed the readiness of the CFI draft
along with other reviewers, I think you can forward it
to the IESG.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

2022년 8월 11일 (목) 오후 8:31, t petch <[e-mail]>님이 작성:

> On 08/08/2022 11:42, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> > Here is the revision of CFI with your comments:
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-23
> >
> > Patrick and I have reflected your comments on the revision, and
> > I attach the revision letter.
>
> Yes, I have reviewed it and have no more comments
>
> Tom Petch
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Paul
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 1:40 AM t petch <[e-mail]> 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.
> >>
> >> 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 <[e-mail]>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 12:21 PM
>
-- 
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department Head
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: [phone]
Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>