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

On 03/08/2022 17:41, t petch 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.

Looking through the e-mails, I found a most helpful one from March 
addressing Ben's comments on capabiity (yes, not nsf, not cfi).

Paul posted 25mar22 asking Paul Wouters' (who had inherited Ben's 
DISCUSS) whether or not capability-29 addressed the DISCUSS.

I cannot see any response to that on the I2NSF list.  There is a reply 
relating to nsf-monitoring 20apr22 but nothing I can see on capability. 
  Since the approval was announced I infer that the DISCUSS was amended 
but am curious why it did not make it to the list.

The subject matter cuts across a number of I-D and so IMHO is relevant 
to consumer-facing (or customer-facing as I am wont to call it:-(

Tom Petch

> 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 <shares@ndzh.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 12:21 PM
>> To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>; i2nsf@ietf.org
>> 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 <i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org>> On
>> Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 1:17 PM
>> To: i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
>> 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
>> I2nsf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>>