Re: [I2nsf] WG Adoption call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-04

[John Strassner <[e-mail]>]

IMHO, the purpose of a WG adopting a draft is to acknowledge that the draft
is a good starting point for the work that WG wants to accomplish. To be
perfectly clear, I am NOT objecting on the completeness of the document.
Rather, I am objecting on the technical correctness of the starting point.

I do NOT feel that the proposed documents represent a good starting point.
Ignoring things that can be easily fixed (e.g., grammar), there are a host
of problems, such as:
   - what, exactly, is this draft trying to do? I thought I would see YANG
for policy rules sent over the Consumer-Facing Interface.
     Instead, I see the name of the interface, whose first element is
multi-tenancy, that also contains policies? Policies do not care
     about multi-tenancy. They do care about domains. The organization of
the YANG is incorrect.
   - sec 4: in the ieft-i2nsf-cf-interface module
      - why is multi-tenancy at the top of the tree? Shouldn't a DOMAIN be
able to have multiple tenants?
      - why does a domain have an authentication-method? First, multiple
such methods should be able to be used. Second, how would a domain know
what an authentication method even is?
      - why is tenant a sibling of domain, and not a child?
      - why is domain a leaf within policy-tenant? This should be a
reference, and why doesn't domain have a reference to policy-tenant?
      - policy roles have nothing to do with multi-tenancy - why are they
here?

 I could go on, but even the above means that the rest of the YANG will be
wrong.

Therefore, the document is NOT a good starting point, and will NOT
accelerate the path to getting a good RFC.

regards,
John

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> The authors of I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-
> facing-interface-dm-04
>
>
>
> Have requested working group adoption of this draft.
>
>
>
> Please bear in mind that WG Adoption doesn’t mean that the draft current
> content is ready, WG Adoption only means that it is a good basis for a
> working group to work on.
>
>
>
> While all feedback is helpful, comments pro or con with explanations are
> much more helpful than just "yes please" or "no thank you".
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Linda & Yoav
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>
>


-- 
regards,
John