Re: [I2nsf] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, sorry for missing your earlier message.

Thanks for the updated document.  This looks good to me.  I'll clear my
DISCUSS shortly.

-MSK

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 1:31 AM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Murray,
> Let me remind you of your action on this draft:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/
>
> We authors believe that we addressed your comments as much as possible.
>
> I hope this draft will move forward through your review and lifting up
> your block.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
> Paul
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:50 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
> jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Murray,
>> This revision has addressed your comments:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-25
>>
>> I attach the revision letter.
>>
>> Could you check this revision?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Paul
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 2:16 PM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
>> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-24: Discuss
>>>
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Please refer to
>>> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
>>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I'd like to talk about the two SHOULDs in Section 1, the Introduction.
>>> Normative guidance is normally in the meat of the document where the
>>> protocol
>>> material is being presented.  Here, the Introduction says:
>>>
>>> * "the security controller SHOULD be able to request the DMS for NSFs
>>> that have
>>> the required security capabilities"
>>>
>>> * "describes the operations that SHOULD be performed by the Security
>>> Controller
>>> and the DMS via the Registration Interface using the defined model"
>>>
>>> I think you need a (probably small) section after Section 2 that lays
>>> out these
>>> normative requirements for controller behavior if that's what the intent
>>> is
>>> here.
>>>
>>> If the intent was just a plain old "should" and not a BCP 14-style
>>> SHOULD, then
>>> this is a pretty easy fix.  But the language you're using here appears
>>> to be
>>> asserting that controllers are expected to behave a particular way.
>>>
>>> It also makes me wonder if this shouldn't be updating some other
>>> document if
>>> you're extending required behavior of an I2NSF component that was defined
>>> someplace else.  I looked around for a document defining "security
>>> controller"
>>> and couldn't find an obvious one, so I'm at a loss for what to suggest.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> The shepherd writeup seems to have skipped answering part of the first
>>> question: Why is this the right document status?
>>>
>>> I'm also confused by the answer to question 18.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> I2nsf mailing list
>>> I2nsf@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>>>
>>