Re: [I2nsf] questions & comments to draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-03

Paul,
Thanks.

Also the “source” and “destination” of the “policy-rule*” in the general data model (page 7) shouldn’t be “string”, should it refer to the policy-endpoint-groups specified on Page 5 instead?

           +--rw policy-rule* [policy-rule-id]
            |  +--rw policy-rule-id                   string
            |  +--rw name?                            string
            |  +--rw date?                            yang:date-and-time
            |  +--rw source?                          policy-endpoint-groups
            |  +--rw destination?                     policy-endpoint-groups
            |  +--rw exception?                       string
            |  +--rw action?                          string
            |  +--rw precedence?                      uint8

On page 7, your “policy-instance” has both “policy-rule*” and “policy-instance*” listed under. Is it intended? Or typeo?

Thanks, Linda

From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong [mailto:jaehoon.paul@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 7:41 AM
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm@ietf.org; Pauljeong@skku.edu; skku_secu-brain_all@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] questions & comments to draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-03

Hi Linda,
You are right.
In the revision, we authors will revise the Consumer-Facing Interface data model
such that it lists individual values for rules.
Also, we will explicitly list the 'Policy Endpoint Group' and 'Custom-List'.

Thanks for your good points.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com<mailto:linda.dunbar@huawei.com>> wrote:
Paul, Eunsoo, Tae-Jin, Rakesh, and Sue,

Thank you very much for the updated i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm03, which matches much better with the i2nsf-consumer-facing-im draft.

Just a few questions.

I noticed that you don’t list individual value for the rules. For example, “primary-action” list the “permit”, “deny”, “rate limit”, etc in the description:

             leaf primary-action {

               type string;

               description

                 "This field identifies the action when a rule

                 is matched by NSF. The action could be one of

                 'PERMIT', 'DENY', 'RATE-LIMIT', 'TRAFFIC-CLASS',

                 'AUTHENTICATE-SESSION', 'IPS, 'APP-FIREWALL', etc.";

             }

In  draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-11, the actions are listed as explicit value.
[cid:image001.png@01D31776.4D052940]

Similar paten goes with the definition of “Source” and “destination”. You have:

             leaf source {

               type string;

               description

                 "This field identifies the source of

                 the traffic. This could be reference to

                 either 'Policy Endpoint Group' or

                 'Threat-Feed' or 'Custom-List' if Security

                 Admin wants to specify the source; otherwise,

                 the default is to match all traffic.";

             }

Not an expert in the data model, I am wondering if you need to explicitly list the 'Policy Endpoint Group', 'Custom-List', etc

Thank you very much,

Linda

_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:I2nsf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

--
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com<mailto:jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>, pauljeong@skku.edu<mailto:pauljeong@skku.edu>
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>

Re: [I2nsf] questions & comments to draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-03

Attachment: image001.png