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,
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.

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
> > To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On
> Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 1:17 PM
> > To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > 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
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>