Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16

"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> Wed, 28 April 2021 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F185F3A0CD1 for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.466
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HK_NAME_FM_MR_MRS=0.631, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yHh7UedPAsaK for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1339E3A0CCD for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id n138so96724337lfa.3 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UenqAqPAFJIramIjGrlEXR5wGRgDmXbSiKlHTplccvU=; b=lgsf8djbj052cSnBXD+826z0OMDCDC1843b8pUWX0vxdUCTr+M2YNfYYU953nlKNb5 nxG/AgH3c/8EJDoCCKP1mXAHzVRpAZUDmsz+DjpSmDqUhqKAOF1nJqF91P3jJmR+5Bnj /FkHHfrHDh6/Q2qf8PZzCYYrhvp+70CS/3hK5HH/UVM0C+FWCzXnrcd5mmKvc92eiQyt IFKjoo9vsE9eQs08pxJ2l7MLckw3oTLaGadpbSglr+sMvcLKfNghNsW0b4HytTAcN0Ec iMtVpEJFpfhc1u65i0ES2WfEpgjWcrMUuA9GkPTdX2enlsVlpZ8qRk8yakz30K4apzUl UnSw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UenqAqPAFJIramIjGrlEXR5wGRgDmXbSiKlHTplccvU=; b=i8Ml54YSwVE+DOG7TO57ntGvqycbUdYMlqO9Ofzh6U+vo7SGBTCsUyDSTTBj5phOi7 KAz0GgwdjXYB2zVv6ds9wKa9ONF3sOj/n/QWB+ywHd7XmsStA9tIk0Q8NLZRzWBC3lC/ i0F5naPoh+F8I7+W+wiv4D803BDqDbt8Hq/eP4b/jGZiBipu6bASInm2yF8Oew92Y5DT EWxZZes3yV23+YMFX2/uKjLq8LADJZW7M5ldLpvZagr5v128XbhDHcu2vX2VoewSOS/6 ldVcgM0urA5e//9zSYl6q71hqzyE6bTLgsUR5SE7osH530hl8yhqUhWE8ssmLpszGYeK yHcA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531n/1VzEmsCdm1F9xOtKlVReJpOx9BAWL4exssofy/mXciu3E1K CRqta/q1OeH4tcmAvwMPwVc8bAwr1B6sS1peiZg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyiAkhOYd6xfjr1ixBNIYYBBnc5F34pizvWjFo1m5hcwvd0k2XHtLtGrjHSIkO00lWNghsapzmHkvnLeC2JXXY=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5a08:: with SMTP id q8mr18587651lfn.12.1619573637380; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <SN6PR13MB23341DC28BD277887FBD69EC85419@SN6PR13MB2334.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <DB7PR07MB55468323E303445356630DE3A2419@DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR07MB55468323E303445356630DE3A2419@DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 10:33:23 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPK2Dez87R=mnaaEyfT8q6sUhQqmCV0ADpa4o-NJLJAhQ+xntg@mail.gmail.com>
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
Cc: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>, "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>, skku-iotlab-members <skku-iotlab-members@googlegroups.com>, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000057fc7705c0fe5fde"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/QQhgHlvChlLIf7Fy3iiLyXwwkxg>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16
X-BeenThere: i2nsf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "*I2NSF: Interface to Network Security Functions mailing list*" <i2nsf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2nsf>, <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2nsf/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf>, <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:34:05 -0000

Hi Tom,
If you have specific comments on draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model
this week,
I will address yours next week.

Thanks for your sincere help for our WG drafts.

Best Regards,
Paul


On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:44 AM tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:

> From: I2nsf <i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Linda Dunbar <
> linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
> Sent: 27 April 2021 16:06
>
> I2NSF WG,
>
> As expected, there is no issue with the second time WGLC for
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model.
>
> <tp>
> Sigh, I did not know there was a Last Call in progress, I did not see that
> on the datatracker:-(  I spent last week going round in circles trying to
> dovetail the five I2NSF YANG modules and this morning finally decided that
> it could not be done.
>
> The general concern I have is that there are a number of YANG modules that
> are doing the same thing in different ways, with different terminology,
> different technology, which is going to give the user heartache IMHO
>
> Today I read RFC8329 hoping that it would give one clear set of right
> terminology but it does not help much; thus s.9.2 therein is rather vague
> with question marks in places.  The various YANG modules are clearly in the
> same ballpark as the RFC but perhaps not on the same base e.g. the RFC has
> pass, deny, mirror while this I-D has pass, drop, alert, mirror and
> differences like that are repeated many times.  In places, that may be by
> design but in others I believe that it is not  I will post some more
> concrete examples on Wednesday.  I will seek to use 'capability' as the
> base, the refer4ence, and point out where the other four diverge
>
> I would say that sdn-ipsec gets it right but I also note that the IESG
> made in excess of 150 changes to the I-D before approving it which I think
> on the one hand was necessary but on the other hand seems a profligate use
> of AD time.   More could have been done beforehand IMHO.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> This email is to confirm that the WGLC for the
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16 is completed. We will move this
> draft to IESG.
>
> Thank you very much for the work.
>
> Best Regards,
> Linda Dunbar
>
> From: Linda Dunbar
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 4:37 PM
> To: i2nsf@ietf.org
> Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16
>
> Hello Working Group,
>
> When I2NSF WG closed the WGLC for  draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model
> in Dec 2019 (
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2nsf/?q=draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model&f_from=Linda%20Dunbar
> ), there was a formative reference to draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 which
> was stale.
>
> After the review, IESG decided to throw the draft back to I2NSF WG and
> requested the WG to reach the consensus to sunset the
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05. The WG finally reached the consensus in
> Oct 2020  (
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2nsf/?q=draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model&f_from=Linda%20Dunbar
> )
>
>
> Many thanks to the authors to merge all the relevant content from
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 and addressed all the comments from YANG
> Doctor review and
>
> This email starts a two-weeks Working Group Last Call on
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/
>
> This poll runs until April 13, 2021.
>
> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to
> this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with
> IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
> If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, please
> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
> relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from
> all the Authors and Contributors.
>
> If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please
> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been
> disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Linda & Yoav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>