Re: [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working Group Last Call Review for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06

Hi Acee,
Here is the revision letter for the revised draft, reflecting your comments
along with the revised draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-07

The following things have not been addressed yet due to the time limitation.
- The leveraging of the definitions in RFC 8519 for packet matching.
- The factoring of common types and identities into a common I2NSF types
module.

These two will be reflected in the next revision.

If you have further comments and questions, please let me know.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:03 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

> I have reviewed this document as part of the YANG doctors directorate's
>
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
> These
>
> comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects
> of the
>
> IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
> in AD reviews
>
> during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
> comments
>
> just like any other early review comments.
>
>
>
>
>
> Document: draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06
>
> Reviewer: Acee Lindem
>
> Review Date: June 22, 2019
>
> Review Type: Working Group Last Call
>
> Intended Status: Standards Track
>
> Summary: Needs to go back to Working Group for rework and another WGLC
>
>
>
> Modules: "ietf-i2nsf-policy-rule-for-nsf@2019-06-12.yang"
>
>
>
> Tech Summary: The model defines different types of I2NSF security policy.
> Each
>
>                              is comprised of an event, a condition, and an
> action. There is
>
>                              significant overlap with other IETF models.
> Within I2NSF, there
>
>                              is repetition of definitions which needs to
> go into a common
>
>                              I2NSF types module.  Additionally, the data
> descriptions were
>
>                               were done quickly and never reviewed or
> edited. I believe
>
>                              it needs to go back to the working group for
> another revision and
>
>                              working group last call.
>
> .
>
>
>
> Major Comments:
>
>
>
>  1. Why don't you leverage the definitions in RFC 8519 for packet matching?
>
>     We don't need all this defined again.
>
>
>
>  2. Date and time are defined in RFC 6991. Why don't those suffice?
>
>
>
>  3. Refer to the intervals as "time-intervals" rather than "time-zones".
>
>     The term "time-zone" has a completely different connotation.
>
>
>
>  4. What the "acl-number"? Also, ACLs are named (RFC 8519). Also, why
>
>     define all the packet matching and then reference an ACL.
>
>
>
>  5. The descriptions are very awkwardly worded and in many cases simply
>
>     repeat the data node or identify description without hyphens. I
>
>     started trying to fix this but it was too much. I'll pass for on
>
>     for some examples. There are enough co-authors and contributors that
>
>     one would expect much better.
>
>
>
>  6. There is overlap of definitions with the I2NSF capabilities draft.
>
>     The common types and identities should be factored into a common
>
>     I2NSF types module.
>
>
>
>  7. The "Security Considerations" in section 8 do not conform to the
>
>     recommended template in
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-
>
>     guidelines>
>
>
>
>
>
> Minor Comments:
>
>
>
>  1. Section 3.1 should reference RFC8340 rather than attempting to
>
>     include tree diagram formatting semantics.
>
>
>
>  2. "iiprfn" is a poor choice for default model prefix - I suggest
>
>     "nsfintf". It is only one character longer and actually is expands
>
>      to something meaningful.
>
>
>
>  3. RFC 2460 is obsoleted by RFC 8200.
>
>
>
>  4. RFC 791 is the wrong reference for IPv4 TOS. It should be RFC 1394.
>
>
>
>  5. What is the IGRP protocol? I'm familiar with EIGRP but not IGRP.
>
>
>
>  6. What is the skip protocol? Is this about skipping the check? If so,
>
>     why is it needed.
>
>
>
>  7. Reference for IPv6 ICMP should be RFC 2463.
>
>
>
>  8. Why do you include Photuris definitions? Nobody uses this.
>
>
>
>  9. Note that all the keys for all 'config true' lists must be
>
>     unique so your specification in the description as well as
>
>     'mandatory true' are redundant for the 'rules' list. This
>
>     mistake is in other lists as well.
>
>
>
> 10. What is 'during' time?
>
>
>
> 11. What is a "security-grp"? Is this a security-group?
>
>
>
> 12. The module prologue doesn't match the example in Appendix B of
>
>     RFC 8407.
>
>
>
> 13. There needs to be a good definition of absolute and periodic
>
>        time in the descriptions.
>
>
>
> 14. The References do not include all the RFCs referenced by YANG
>
>     model reference statements.
>
>
>
> Nits: Will send diff to authors and i2nsf chairs as example of review that
> should be done on YANG documents prior to sending to YANG doctors.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>

-- 
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>

Re: [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working Group Last Call Review for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06

Attachment: Revision-Letter-for-I2NSF-NSF-Facing-Interface-YANG-Data-Model-20190725.pdf