Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06
"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> Tue, 07 September 2021 04:11 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 ACF463A082D for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 21:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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=0.542, 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 c2fyDvXq8dgo for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 21:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (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 D11703A082C for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 21:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id y6so14383849lje.2 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 21:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qhyKqq0JPgbzUiWexy0j3s663MDMDcDjEdpOp7orkm4=; b=AovzkjFSTzPPpa8O4y2bZ4DjHzf1y/S5e7Faxurm/EcYJXPgBFDjexrXXqfzomuziL 0ejpI7oy8nOEegVDwRnfJVo1hIcu6WHswpawHHEzHmSk0YGwQQNAB6esRAW7anupzBVN Lkq0+HKS7I4e6Eh83nYX632YsNy0XjF7ZbkiH/SjGQShTM2nIB1mGjbhF+DKkw7aYbB8 qB1FsOKzEWQ1c27RIA3r1HqAzcRiBk5NZ5U1wec975aJUk6aq9IMWEt75EnsCrfF5e6Z H43NwnPiFU0mjA/w9GOtGcqHpxWGh0xECHhyzt2XFbY4+kppULp8Q2YqXAYNRbF6R+v5 X4bw==
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=qhyKqq0JPgbzUiWexy0j3s663MDMDcDjEdpOp7orkm4=; b=nSY3IQPRYzOBg+AaP2bgdnoMNq0SEwfpxruJzh6X8WBrf5H57l3SoSsdTeoB5kfC7F EeNfShORAIbTvVvjHV98M4ut3MSHo8ZDcEqxj3ZGn7YF8VYqahRv2/xnZyFu0z03Aoa0 f0BT3O+exPnnrpHC2oP/5fcJWpScH+jboq0zya+jRrtkUzMOukD/+xQkQNmTuRjdlFMy XQtdFdbUZakHfuMovcGaIKwSPN6PYdP2ZPGQf5xcwh6U8ZCpHyUnCrcLfT9NBJW69Nl5 mbYyPS0mEIClSGhNiSB+T+MYa9nJrvB6arUaFN+eTX1mkuw4xTZI8FR8cSBFJ3n0zw8I WhkQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5312zZJRxZPtY4VugnZBDr+9JO+XunQoJxC1p+pfUu7bSlrsR2KT Oo//B9JIG15bOIu4uwXRl2CxCx3WwkYnHOzoqZM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwH78W/APHADgdim+6RSP1cnHvnx8sO/g+f4kdRk2IXUYY6aTNXu3IRti5KplpS8iNvYVu96dPyrNl92nBMwOI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9803:: with SMTP id a3mr12950669ljj.423.1630987869647; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 21:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6130B864.50606@btconnect.com> <DB7PR07MB5546C943660A17CA0A80CCF3A2D29@DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR07MB5546C943660A17CA0A80CCF3A2D29@DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 13:10:33 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPK2Dewr=F9d741WMHMZZzWzMYRTTDLMKzGfpg8xAYesHpQjsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
Cc: "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>, Patrick Lingga <patricklink888@gmail.com>, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009a771105cb5ff466"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/WmX4AYc1XDtUIFhhaBRl01OIbdw>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06
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: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 04:11:18 -0000
Hi Tom, I will use start-date-time according to your suggestion. Thanks. Best Regards, Paul On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 12:35 AM tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote: > Top-posting one more comment about the different I-Ds being different:-) > > This I-D uses the leaf start-time where other I-D s use leaf > start-date-time. This inconsistency was apparent when I looked at > draft-lingga-i2nsf-application-interface-dm-00 > where there are two examples one after the other with the different > formats. I think that start-date-time is better but, as ever, I do like > consistency! > > Tom Petch > > From: I2nsf <i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of t petch < > ietfa@btconnect.com> > Sent: 02 September 2021 12:41 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 3:27 PM > > > Hi Tom, > > Patrick and I have addressed your comments below with -09 version: > > > > I attach the revision letter to explain how to address them. > > > > Please let us know where this revision satisfies you or not. > > Paul > > Getting there. > > You have added some references to the YANG module - good - but you must > also add them to the I-D References > > I see > RFC854, RFC913, RFC1081, RFC4340, RFC4960, RFC5321, RFC7230, RFC7231. > RFC1081 is obsoleted by RFC1225 so that would likely be a better > reference. In other I-D you have cited RFC793bis - I do not know if > that is appropriate here. > > You import > ietf-i2nsf-policy-rule-for-nsf { > with prefix nsfi but in nsf-facing the prefix is nsfintf > Needs to be consistent > > In identity, derived from application-protocol (a base which I like), I > note that 'imap' is present elsewhere but not here. I do not know if > that is relevant to this module or not. > > In the data module: > > /http:/https:/ > > leaf src-zone { > I was thrown by this thinking of IPv6 address zones but the description > makes in clear that this is nothing of the sort. Probably not worth > changing but if you do I would suggest src-location as is used in the > description clause. > > leaf-list user-agent { > I think that the description violates (!) the limit on line length for > an RFC > > container i2nsf-counters { > description > "This is probably better covered by an import as this > This seems unfinished > > leaf alarm-type { > elsewhere you have switched to lower case (which I think right) but this > needs bringing in line (I do like consistency). > > 10. I2NSF Event Stream > you are using the NETMOD convention for line breaks; would benefit from > a reference > "line breaks as per [RFC8792] > > The I-D is big and I hope to find time this month to go through it again > in more detail. Meanwhile, on to capability. > > In passing, I get a bounce for skku-iotlab-members every time. > > Tom Petch > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > Best Regards, > > Paul > > > > On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 7:44 PM t petch > <ietfa@btconnect.com<mailto:ietfa@btconnect.com>> wrote: > > Paul > > > > Top posting since this is a more general response (and leaving in YANG > > doctors since I note that five different YANG doctors reviewed the > five > > I-D and so might not see the issue that concerns me). > > > > As you have probably realised, I have now looked at the five YANG I-D > of > > I2NSF and am concerned at the disparate approaches to the same topics > > that I think will confuse a user and, likely, induce mistakes. I > > provided some detailed comments in response to WG LC on > > capability-data-model but really it cuts across all five. It may be > > that the inconsistenicies that I see can be justified but if so, then > I > > think that the I-D may need some text to say so, to relate one I-D to > > another. > > > > The treatment of YANG identity for ICMP is to me a clear example. I > > think that nsf-monitoring is good here, deriving icmpv4 and icmpv6 > from > > icmp (and ipv4 and ipv6) > > while capability is not good having icmp (sic) and icmpv6 as two > > unrelated identity, no common base. > > > > But at a higher level it may be that capability has a better treatment > > where it has > > base event; [from which is derived] > > identity system-event-capability { > > identity system-alarm-capability { > > > > base system-event-capability; > > identity access-violation { > > identity configuration-change { > > > > base system-alarm-capability; > > identity memory-alarm { > > identity cpu-alarm { > > identity disk-alarm { > > identity hardware-alarm { > > identity interface-alarm { > > > > while nsf-monitoring has > > > > base alarm-type; > > identity mem-usage-alarm { > > identity cpu-usage-alarm { > > identity disk-usage-alarm { > > identity hw-failure-alarm { > > identity ifnet-state-alarm { > > > > base event-type; > > identity access-denied { > > identity config-change { > > > > Different structure, different terminology, and these examples are > quite > > close compared to some others. I would expect at least the root of > the > > identifier to be the same if not the whole identifier. > > > > What is missing, for me, is an underlying, high-level, information > model > > to provide a consistent structure and a consistent terminology for the > > I2NSF YANG I-D. > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" > <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com<mailto:jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>> > > To: <tom petch> > > Cc: <Last Call>; <i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>>; <Andy > Bierman>; <Yoav Nir>; > > > <draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ie > tf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model.all@ietf.org>>; <Linda > > Dunbar>; <Patrick Lingga>; <YANG Doctors>; <skku-iotlab-members>; <Mr. > > Jaehoon Paul Jeong> > > Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 3:49 PM > > Subject: Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call review of > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06 > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > Patrick and I have addressed all your comments below with the > > following revision. > > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-da > > > ta-model-08<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-m > onitoring-data-model-08 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-08> > > > > > > > > > > I attach our revision letter. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 6:59 PM tom petch > > > <daedulus@btconnect.com<mailto:daedulus@btconnect.com><mailto:daedulus@b > tconnect.com<mailto:daedulus@btconnect.com>>> wrote: > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > Some admin comments on -07; I think that you need to: > > > > > > > > - change the title in YANG revision reference > > > > > > > > - add to the I-D references > > > > RFC959 > > > > RFC8632 > > > > > > > > - shorten lines. There is a limit to line length in RFC as per the > > Style > > > > Guide. This is exceeded in the YANG where some of the path > statements > > > > take it over 80 while some of the examples are over 100. > > > > > > > > - add a reference for the import of > > > > ietf-i2nsf-policy-rule-for-nsf > > > > > > > > HTH > > > > > > > > Tom Petcb > > > > > > > > On 01/04/2021 03:09, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote: > > >>> > > > Hi Andy, Linda, and Yoav, > > >>> > > > Patrick and I have addressed all the comments from Andy. > > >>> > > > Here is the revised draft -07: > > > > ATT00001.txt 130 bytes > > > > Attachments: > > > Revision-Letter-for-NSF-Monitoring-YANG-Data-Model-version-09-20210824.d > ocx 103 kB > > > Revision-Letter-for-NSF-Monitoring-YANG-Data-Model-version-09-20210824.p > df 420 kB > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >
- [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-iet… Andy Bierman via Datatracker
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Andy Bierman
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call rev… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call rev… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call rev… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call rev… t petch
- Re: [I2nsf] [yang-doctors] [Last-Call] Yangdoctor… Martin Björklund
- Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call rev… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] [yang-doctors] [Last-Call] Yangdoctor… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call rev… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] [yang-doctors] [Last-Call] Yangdoctor… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call rev… t petch
- Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call rev… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call rev… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call rev… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call rev… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong