[I2nsf] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-23: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 06 April 2023 18:28 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm@ietf.org, i2nsf-chairs@ietf.org, i2nsf@ietf.org, ldunbar@huawei.com, ldunbar@huawei.com
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <168080568974.11507.10415413516247385501@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2023 11:28:09 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/RFnIR2XteSNPtMjXCqE9G7GytiM>
Subject: [I2nsf] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-23: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-23: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# John Scudder, RTG AD, comments draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-23
CC @jgscudder

## COMMENTS

### Section 3, misused RFC 2119 keyword

In "After an NSF is registered with Security Controller, some modifications on
the capability of the NSF MAY be required later" I suspect you really meant
"may" in the ordinary English sense as a synonym for "might" or "could", and
not MAY in the RFC 2119 sense? If you really mean to express a protocol
requirement here, please say more, otherwise please change to use one of the
normal English options.

### Section 4.2, missing text, misused RFC 2119 keyword

The first paragraph of Section 4.2 ends in what appears to be a sentence
fragment. It looks like something's missing there.

The second paragraph begins with "Security Controller MAY require some
additional capabilities to serve the security service request from an I2NSF
User, but none of the registered NSFs has the required capabilities." The same
comment applies as for Section 3.

### Section 5.1.1 wrong reference

When you reference RFC 8431, did you mean RFC 8340?

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

[I2nsf] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf… John Scudder via Datatracker