Re: [I2nsf] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

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

Hi Murray,
This revision has addressed your comments:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-25

I attach the revision letter.

Could you check this revision?

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 2:16 PM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-24: Discuss
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'd like to talk about the two SHOULDs in Section 1, the Introduction.
> Normative guidance is normally in the meat of the document where the
> protocol
> material is being presented.  Here, the Introduction says:
>
> * "the security controller SHOULD be able to request the DMS for NSFs that
> have
> the required security capabilities"
>
> * "describes the operations that SHOULD be performed by the Security
> Controller
> and the DMS via the Registration Interface using the defined model"
>
> I think you need a (probably small) section after Section 2 that lays out
> these
> normative requirements for controller behavior if that's what the intent is
> here.
>
> If the intent was just a plain old "should" and not a BCP 14-style SHOULD,
> then
> this is a pretty easy fix.  But the language you're using here appears to
> be
> asserting that controllers are expected to behave a particular way.
>
> It also makes me wonder if this shouldn't be updating some other document
> if
> you're extending required behavior of an I2NSF component that was defined
> someplace else.  I looked around for a document defining "security
> controller"
> and couldn't find an obvious one, so I'm at a loss for what to suggest.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The shepherd writeup seems to have skipped answering part of the first
> question: Why is this the right document status?
>
> I'm also confused by the answer to question 18.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>