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

[t petch <[e-mail]>]

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