Re: [I2nsf] Fwd: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Diego: 

 

The title you proposed looks good to me. 

 

Cheers, Sue 

 

From: I2nsf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Diego R. Lopez
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 10:47 AM
To: Rafa Marin-Lopez; [e-mail]
Cc: Roman Danyliw; Gabriel Lopez; Yoav Nir; Fernando Pereniguez-Garcia; Linda Dunbar; Benjamin Kaduk; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Fwd: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

 

Hi,

 

It looks reasonable to me, but I wonder whether in order to avoid the stacking of hyphenated qualifiers we could use:

 

A YANG Data Model for IPsec Flow Protection based on Software-Defined Networking (SDN)

 

Be goode,

 

--

"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

 

Dr Diego R. Lopez

Telefonica I+D

 <https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/> https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/ 

 

e-mail:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

Mobile:  [phone]

----------------------------------

 

On 14/06/2021, 09:24, "I2nsf on behalf of Rafa Marin-Lopez" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

 

Dear I2NSF WG members:

 

We have received a suggestion from the RFC editor about a possible change in the title:

 

Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection —>

 

A YANG Data Model for Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection

 

We think this is reasonable and it is inline with the document.

 

If you do not have any objection, we can apply this change. Any thoughts?

 

Best Regards.

 

Inicio del mensaje reenviado:

 

De: [e-mail]

Asunto: Re: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

Fecha: 10 de junio de 2021, 22:58:29 CEST

Para: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

 

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!--[rfced] We note that most of the recently published RFCs containing 
YANG modules format their titles as "A YANG Data Model for...", for example: 

   RFC 8022 - A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
   RFC 7407 - A YANG Data Model for SNMP Configuration
   RFC 7317 - A YANG Data Model for System Management
   RFC 7277 - A YANG Data Model for IP Management

Please consider whether the title of this document should be updated.
-->


2) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we change "while" to "whereas" here?
This would make it clear that the intended meaning is a contrast
rather than "at the same time".

Original:
 Therefore, the NSF will only have support for
 IPsec while key management functionality is moved to the I2NSF
 Controller.
-->


3) <!--[rfced] We see a number of author-inserted comments in the .xml 
file for this document. We are unsure if these have been resolved. 
Please review and let us know if these can be deleted or if they need 
to be addressed.
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] FYI: Note that the YANG modules have been updated per 
the formatting option of pyang.  Please let us know any concerns.
-->


5) <!--[rfced] In Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.3, should "rw enable?"
and "leaf enable" be "rw enabled?" (as used in RFC 8340 ad most
published RFCs) and "leaf enabled" (as used in most published RFCs)?

Original:
rw enable?   boolean
...
leaf enable {
-->


6) <!--[rfced] RFC 2560 is referenced in the YANG module in Section 5.2.3
but is not mentioned anywhere else in the text. May we add it as a
Normative Reference and to the introductory text in Section 5.2.3?
-->


7) <!--[rfced] In tree diagram in Section 5.3.1, the two lines that 
include "ipsec-protocol-parameters" are one character too long to 
fit in the space allowed in the txt output file. Please let us know
how to adjust this so that it will fit.
-->


8) <!--[rfced] In the Security Considerations section, the text 
does not exactly match what appears on 
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>. 
Paragraph 5 of the YANG boilerplate text is missing. This seems 
intentional, but we'd like to confirm that this is correct.
-->


9) <!--[rfced] The following reference has been superseded 
by a 2021 version.  Would you like for it to be updated?

Original:
  [ITU-T.X.690]
             "Recommendation ITU-T X.690", August 2015.

2021 version:
  [ITU-T.X.690]
             International Telecommunication Union, "Information
             technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic
             Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and
             Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation
             X.690, ISO/IEC 8825-1, February 2021.
-->


10) <!--[rfced] Should "SaaS" be expanded as "Software as a Service" 
or "Storage as a Service"?

Original:
  For example, SD-WAN technologies are providing
  dynamic and on-demand VPN connections between branch offices, or
  between branches and SaaS cloud services. 
-->


11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of 
the online Style Guide 
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let 
us know if any changes are needed. 
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/ap/jm

On 6/10/21 3:55 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2021/06/10

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
  follows:

  <!-- [rfced] ... -->

  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
  change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
  - contact information
  - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
  <https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html>.

*  Formatted output

  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email with one of the following, 
using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see 
your changes:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email s
tating that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’
as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9061 (draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14)

Title            : Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection
Author(s)        : R. Marin-Lopez, G. Lopez-Millan, F. Pereniguez-Garcia
WG Chair(s)      : Linda Dunbar, Yoav Nir
Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Benjamin Kaduk

 

-------------------------------------------------------
Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD
Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC)
Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
30100 Murcia - Spain
Telf: [phone] Fax: [phone] e-mail: <mailto:[e-mail]>  [e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

  _____  


Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição