Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-07

["Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,
I have reverted to the previous version of typedef time with the following
revision:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-12

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul


On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:04 PM tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 06/09/2020 12:26, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> > I have reflected your two comments in the revision:
> >
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-11
> >
> > Please see my answers inline below.
>
> Paul
>
> I like the prefix:-)
>
> With the type 'time' I had something rather more complex in mind and
> think now that it is rather too complex for this situation. (Namely that
> you can import a specific revision of a module so that you can import
> the types from 6991-bis rather than 6991 so you then get 'time'
> automatically and do not have to define anything but it does introduce
> side effects which I now think outweigh the benefits)
>
> So, I would revert to what you had and just define 'time' as you do at
> present and omit the references to 6991-bis.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:31 AM tom petch <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 28/08/2020 14:46, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote:
> >>> Hi Tom,
> >>> I have addressed all your comments in the following revision:
> >>>
> >>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-10
> >>>
> >>
> >> Inline
> >>
> >>
> >>> Here are my answers for your comments:
> >>>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Some more minor tweaks
> >>> s.5.1 /gorup/group/
> >>> => The replacement is done.
> >>>
> >>> YANG module
> >>>
> >>> WG Chairs are not usually listed in the module - they used to be
> >>> => The information of WG Chairs is removed.
> >>>
> >>> description is a bit terse - some quote the Abstract
> >>> => I have improved the descriptions in the YANG module.
> >>>
> >>> YARA, SNORT, SURICATA would benefit from references; they are not ones
> I
> >>> see in TLS or SSH!
> >>> => I have added the references to YARA, SNORT, and SURICATA.
> >>>
> >>> typedef time I see in RFC6991bis
> >>> => I used typedef time in RFC6991bis.
> >>
> >> See my other note about importing from 6991-bis rather than from 6991
> >>
> >
> >   => I replaced 6991 with 6991-bis.
> >
> >>>
> >>> does the ipv6 addresss ever need the interface?
> >>> => Yes, the IPv6 address needs the CFI interface.
> >>>      I added an XML example using IPv6 addresses.
> >>>
> >>> start/end ipv4/ipv6 could do with a must end > start
> >>> => I put a description that an IPv4/IPv6 start address is lower than
> >>>      an IPv4/IPv6 end address.
> >>>
> >>>      "A range match for IPv4 addresses is provided.  Note that the
> >>>       start IPv4 address must be lower than the end IPv4 address.";
> >>>
> >>>      "A range match for IPv6 addresses is provided.  Note that the
> >>>       start IPv6 address must be lower than the end IPv4 address.";
> >>>
> >>> geo-ip could do with a reference
> >>> => I added a reference to geo-ip as follows.
> >>>      RFC8805: A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation Feeds
> >>>
> >>> s.9.1 221.159 is not a documentation address - see RFC5737
> >>> => I used documentation addresses for IPv4 from RFC5737.
> >>>      I also used documentation addresses for IPv6 from RFC3849.
> >>
> >> good
> >>
> >>
> >>> IESG often expect an ipv6 example alongside ipv4
> >>> => I added an XML example using IPv6 addresses in Figure 19.
> >>>
> >>> s.12 Registrant should be IESG
> >>> => I modified the IANA considerations section such that Registrant is
> the
> >>> IESG.
> >>>
> >>> prefix is not that of the module
> >>> => I am not sure of this comment. I think we use the correct prefix of
> >>> "cfi-policy".
> >>>      CFI stands for Consumer-Facing Interface.
> >>
> >> Yes indeed you do - my mistake.  What I had intended to say, looking at
> >> other NSF modules, was that there are a number of NSF modules and the
> >> chosen prefix have nothing in common.  Bear in mind that all the YANG
> >> modules get mixed up together on the box so while the prefix need to be
> >> compact, there is something to be said for them to be meaningful so
> >> RTGWG modules could start rt... or MPLS ones mpls... or PCE ones pce..
> >> and so on so you could consider using a prefix of nsf... such as nsfcfi
> >> or if there are several such nsfcfi-p or some such (but that is getting
> >> a bit long)
> >>
> >
> >   => I used nsfcfi for the prefix for Consumer-Facing Interface (CFI).
> >
> >       Thanks.
> >
> >       Best Regards,
> >       Paul
> >>
> >> Tom Petch
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your valuable comments.
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards,
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 8:07 PM tom petch <[e-mail]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 17/07/2020 10:51, tom petch wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/07/2020 08:44, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Jan and Tom,
> >>>>>> I have revised our I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface (CFI) Data Model
> >>>> Draft
> >>>>>> according to both your comments.
> >>>>>>
> <snip>
>


-- 
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: [phone]
Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>