Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-07

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

Hi Jan,
I have addressed all your comments and submitted the revised draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-10


I attach the revision letter to explain how I have addressed your comments.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul


On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:00 AM Jan Lindblad <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> Good work with the module, and sorry for the slow response. I have been
> OOO. I read through this again today, and I have some comments, if you are
> interested. I guess this is not part of any formal review any more.
>
>
> o  Figure 1: Not sure I understand what the arrow from "Consumer-Facing
> Interface Information Model" ---> "Consumer-Facing Interface Data Model"
> means, but it probably does no harm.
>
> o  Figure 5: The tree diagram leafref paths are strange (e.g.
>  -> /../../user-group/name)
>
> o  Figure 7, figure 12: The UML diagram cardinality is given as "1..n" in
> several places. In the actual YANG, the cardinality is "0..n"
>
> o  Section 5: The endpoint groups are mapped to a single IP or IP range.
> Is that sufficient for your use cases? Also, much of this information re IP
> addresses for users, devices and geo locations in the world are probably
> available in other systems with most network operators. Is it advisable to
> duplicate that information here? Sounds difficult to keep all this
> information in sync.
>
> o  Section 6: Threat signatures and content patterns can be configured
> here. Is the expectation that the I2NSF client (operator?) configures these
> patterns, and the I2NSF server communicates these patterns to the threat
> feed servers, as a sort of controller? How this part of the model would be
> used is not clear to me.
>
> o  Section 9: The examples should use prefixed identity names. For example
>       <protocol>http</protocol>  should be
> <protocol>i2nsf-cfi:http</protocol>
> and
>             <day>monday</day>  should be   <day>i2nsf-cfi:monday</day>
>
> o Section 9.2 and 9.3: Even though the examples text talks about the value
> of "destination", no such tag is actually present in the XML.
>
>
> Then in the YANG module itself:
>
> o  In ip-ranges like container range-ipv4-address, what happens if either
> of start- or end- address is omitted? Maybe explain in the description, or
> make both leafs mandatory?
>
> o  In container period there are several when-expressions that mean
> something else than you think:
>             container period{
>               when
>
> "/i2nsf-cfi-policy/rules/rule/event/frequency!='only-once'";
> By using an abosolute path like this, the XPath expression looks for
> matching instances across all rules. This means this expression is true as
> soon as there is at least one rule with a frequency != 'only-once'. There
> are several other when expressions here with the same problem. What I think
> you mean is this:
>             container period{
>               when "../../frequency!='only-once'";
> This expression looks only at the frequency leaf in the same rule instance
> as the period container is in. The other when expressions can be fixed in a
> similar way.
>
> o  leaf frequency: What happens if this leaf is set to weekly and no day
> is specified? Or monthly, etc? One way of modeling this to avoid the
> problem is to make the leaf-list day, leaf-list date, leaf-list month etc a
> choice, so that the frequency is implicit by configuring a day, date or
> month. If none of them are set, that would mean only-once. Just a thought.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> /jan
>
>
> On 13 Jul 2020, at 14:20, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Jan,
> I have uploaded the revised draft into the IETF repository:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-09
>
>
> I attach the revision letter, too.
>
> Could you review the draft and complete your YANG review if you are
> satisfied with the revision?
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm/
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
> Paul
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 4:44 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jan and Tom,
>> I have revised our I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface (CFI) Data Model Draft
>> according to both your comments.
>>
>> Jan,
>> I attach the revised draft and the revision letter to explain how I have
>> reflected your comments one by one.
>>
>> Tom,
>> the references to RFC inside our YANG module cannot be cited in my I-D
>> XML file, so I cannot include them
>> in Normative References.
>>
>> Also, the choice of the prefix  is i2nsf-cfi.
>>
>> I put "Note: This section is informative" for Sections 7 and 10, which
>> include XML configuration examples.
>>
>> If you have further comments, please let me know by July 12, 2020, in EST.
>> If possible, I want to post this revision on July 13, 2020 after
>> reflecting your further comments on the revision.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 2:25 AM Jan Lindblad <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>> Thank you for all your work with the module, and for the reminder for me
>>> to verify all the changes.
>>>
>>> I am afraid I think the module is still not ready for last call, even if
>>> it is better shape than ever thanks to your efforts. I went through the
>>> module from top to bottom, so this is sorted in order of appearance.
>>>
>>> Line 107-204: The following identities are declared in the module, but
>>> never referenced. They should either have a common base with something, or
>>> be referenced somewhere. If not, why are they defined here? They currently
>>> serve no purpose in this YANG module.
>>>   identity ddos {
>>>   identity enforce-type {
>>>   identity admin {
>>>   identity time {
>>>
>>> Line 377: Defining a custom date-and-time type seems odd. You should
>>> probably use one that has already been defined
>>>   typedef date-and-time {
>>>
>>> Line 513: The leaf represents the name of a user, but the format is
>>> undefined. What should be the format for the string value? How would a user
>>> know what to configure here? Email addresses? If implementation dependent,
>>> say so.
>>>     leaf name {
>>>       type string;
>>>       description
>>>         "This represents the name of a user.";
>>>
>>> Line 518: If no IP address information is specified for the user-group,
>>> what happens then? Is the user access accepted, rejected, or something else?
>>>     uses ip-address-info;
>>>
>>> Line 658: Key leaf declared mandatory. All keys are mandatory, so
>>> mandatory is not needed on this leaf.
>>>     leaf policy-name {
>>>       type string;
>>>       mandatory true;
>>>
>>> Line 664: Users mentioned in the owners-ref should have full CRUD
>>> privileges to the policy. But what about everyone else? Should they have
>>> R(ead) privileges? Can anyone create new policies? If not, who can? If
>>> someone creates a policy, but does not mention his own name among owners
>>> (e.g. misspells or does not get the format right), he will not be able to
>>> modify or remove the policy. If no owner is mentioned, then noone can.
>>>     uses owners-ref;
>>>
>>> Line 673: Key leaf declared mandatory. All keys are mandatory, so
>>> mandatory is not needed on this leaf.
>>>         leaf rule-name {
>>>           type string;
>>>           mandatory true;
>>>
>>> Line 682: Users mentioned in the owners-ref should have full CRUD
>>> privileges to the rule. But what about everyone else? Should they have
>>> R(ead) privileges? Can anyone create new rules, or only those that have
>>> full CRUD privileges for the policy? If someone creates a rule, but does
>>> not mention his own name among owners (e.g. misspells or does not get the
>>> format right), he will not be able to modify or remove the rule.
>>>     uses owners-ref;
>>>
>>> Line 697: Choice enforce-type has a description that I can't understand.
>>> What does this mean?
>>>           choice enforce-type {
>>>             description
>>>               "There are two different enforcement types;
>>>               admin, and time.
>>>               It cannot be allowed to configure
>>>               admin=='time' or enforce-time=='admin'.";
>>>
>>> Line 703: In case of enforce-type admin (whatever that means), a string
>>> value needs to be configured. What are the valid values for this leaf?
>>>             case enforce-admin {
>>>               leaf admin {
>>>                 type string;
>>>                 description
>>>                   "This represents the enforcement type
>>>                   based on admin's decision.";
>>>
>>> Line 711: In case of enforce-type time, three times can be configured.
>>> What is the relation between enforce-time, and the other two (begin-time,
>>> end-time)?
>>>             case time {
>>>               container time-information {
>>>                 description
>>>                   "The begin-time and end-time information
>>>                   when the security rule should be applied.";
>>>                 leaf enforce-time {
>>>                   type date-and-time;
>>>                   description
>>>                     "The enforcement type is time-enforced.";
>>>                 }
>>>                 leaf begin-time {
>>>                   type date-and-time;
>>>                   description
>>>                     "This is start time for time zone";
>>>                 }
>>>                 leaf end-time {
>>>                   type date-and-time;
>>>                   description
>>>                     "This is end time for time zone";
>>>                 }
>>>
>>> Furthermore, the locally defined date-and-time type used includes both a
>>> date and time, which seems to be at odds with the example configurations in
>>> the draft. Example 9.2:
>>>   <rules>
>>>     <rule>
>>>       <rule-name>block_access_to_sns_during_office_hours</rule-name>
>>>       <event>
>>>         <time-information>
>>>           <begin-time>2020-03-11T09:00:00.00Z</begin-time>
>>>           <end-time>2020-03-11T18:00:00.00Z</end-time>
>>>
>>> In the example, the rule-name "block_access_to_sns_during_office_hours "
>>> suggests that the begin-time and end-time should be times of day between
>>> which the policy should be enforced. E.g. every day between 9.00 and 18.00.
>>> If that is a valid use case, using a time type with a date doesn't make
>>> much sense. In the context of the policy that repeats "daily", how should
>>> the start date-and-time value "2020-03-11T09:00:00.00Z " be interpreted?
>>> What if it was "monthly"?
>>>
>>> Line 736: In the frequency leaf, the enumeration value only-once is for
>>> rules that don't repeat. But how long do they apply? A single packet? A
>>> single time the rule is triggered? How does a user know if the rule is
>>> still in effect, i.e. if the "once" has happened or not?
>>>               enum only-once {
>>>
>>> Line 835: Maybe it's just my limited understanding of how threat-feeds
>>> work, but I wonder i this construct with source and destinations for threat
>>> feeds is meaningful?
>>>           container threat-feed-condition {
>>>             description
>>>               "The condition based on the threat-feed information.";
>>>             leaf-list source {
>>>               type leafref {
>>>                 path
>>> "/i2nsf-cfi-policy/threat-preventions/threat-feed-list/name";
>>>               }
>>>             description
>>>               "Describes the threat-feed condition source.";
>>>             }
>>>             leaf dest-target {
>>>               type leafref {
>>>                 path
>>> "/i2nsf-cfi-policy/threat-preventions/threat-feed-list/name";
>>>               }
>>>             description
>>>               "Describes the threat-feed condition destination.";
>>>
>>> Line 920: Location groups can be configured, but there seems to be no
>>> references to them. How are they supposed to be used?
>>>       list location-group{
>>>         key "name";
>>>         uses location-group;
>>>
>>> Line 931: Regarding point 16.1 in your revision letter, you say "We
>>> think list type of threat-feed-list can be configured more than one feed of
>>> the same type". I'm afraid that is not the case with the current YANG
>>> model. If you do wish to allow more than one threat-feed-list for the same
>>> threat-feed-type, you need to add an additional key to your
>>> threat-feed-list.
>>>       list threat-feed-list {
>>>         key "name";
>>>         description
>>>           "There can be a single or multiple number of
>>>           threat-feeds.";
>>>         uses threat-feed-info;
>>>
>>> ...
>>>   grouping threat-feed-info {
>>>     description
>>>       "This is the grouping for the threat-feed-list";
>>>     leaf name {
>>>       type identityref {
>>>         base threat-feed-type;
>>>
>>>
>>> Generally, the indentation in the module is much improved. Some lines
>>> are still a bit off, however, so I would recommend using a tool that
>>> indents consistently.
>>>
>>> Generally, I also wonder whether there has been any discussion with
>>> implementors around the admin security model proposed here. As noted
>>> before, it's a bit different from everything else I have seen. Is it well
>>> thought through? Do implementors feel this is doable and user friendly?
>>> Currently there are no examples involving owner. Perhaps an example that
>>> sheds some light over how different users create, modify and see the
>>> various rules would shed some light over this.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> /jan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Mar 2020, at 18:41, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jan,
>>> Could you update the state of YANGDOCTORS Last Call Review on
>>> I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model  if the updates are fine
>>> to you?
>>>
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm/
>>>
>>> I think your comments are all addressed in this version.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 1:15 AM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jan,
>>>> We authors have addressed your comments with the revision:
>>>>
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-08
>>>>
>>>> I attach a revision letter to explain how to respond to your comments.
>>>>
>>>> If you have further comments, please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:53 AM Jan Lindblad via Datatracker <
>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Reviewer: Jan Lindblad
>>>>> Review result: Almost Ready
>>>>>
>>>>> This is my YD review of
>>>>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-07. I
>>>>> have previously reviewed the -05 revision (~end June). I find the new
>>>>> revision
>>>>> much improved, but still with much to discuss. I will call this
>>>>> "almost ready".
>>>>>
>>>>> Generally speaking, I think the YANG module lacks the precision and
>>>>> descriptions needed to foster interoperability. The examples at the
>>>>> end are
>>>>> very enlightening however, and compensate for much of that, but their
>>>>> informal
>>>>> nature can never replace proper YANG. The module usage needs to be
>>>>> mostly clear
>>>>> from the module itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> The management access control model proposed here is, even with its
>>>>> latest
>>>>> adaptation towards NACM, is still quite different from NACM author's
>>>>> original
>>>>> ideas. I will therefore bring this use case up in the NETMOD WG for
>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Network access control principles
>>>>>
>>>>> Network access control is about which users are able to use the
>>>>> network being
>>>>> managed, for example connect to facebook. The purpose of the NSF
>>>>> module is to
>>>>> control this access. This version of the YANG module is now based on a
>>>>> list of
>>>>> policies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Each policy has a list of rules. Each rule has an event -- condition
>>>>> -- action
>>>>> triplet. This resembles traditional firewall management, which is a
>>>>> good thing,
>>>>> because that concept is stable and much tried. This allows operators
>>>>> to create
>>>>> lists of rules in this style:
>>>>>
>>>>> if pkt.x == 1: drop                     // Rule 1
>>>>> elif pkt.y > 2: alert                   // Rule 2
>>>>> elif pkt.z == 10: pass          // Rule 3
>>>>> else: drop                              // Rule 4
>>>>>
>>>>> This pattern relies heavily on the ability to control the order of the
>>>>> rules.
>>>>> The current model relies on the alphabetical sorting of names rules
>>>>> for the
>>>>> ordering. The YANG trick I would recommend to give operators the
>>>>> ability to
>>>>> insert and move rules as they wish is to add ordered-by user on the
>>>>> list:
>>>>>
>>>>>     list rule {
>>>>>       ordered-by user;  // <== Add this line
>>>>>       leaf rule-name {
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing is said about what the system should do in case policies
>>>>> conflict. What
>>>>> if one policy says pass, the other drop for the same packet? Please
>>>>> clarify.
>>>>> What should happen to packets that do not match any of the policies?
>>>>>
>>>>> This module also assumes that all users in the operator's organization
>>>>> are
>>>>> listed in one or more NACM groups (e.g. "employees"). That wasn't
>>>>> really the
>>>>> NACM authors' original intent. Even if this could be made to work
>>>>> maybe, there
>>>>> is no strong reason to repurpose the NACM group concept for user
>>>>> network access
>>>>> purposes. It could easily be modeled differently. So in the cases
>>>>> where there
>>>>> are leafrefs to NACM groups when dealing with network access rather
>>>>> than
>>>>> management access, don't use NACM groups.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 leaf src-target {
>>>>>                   type leafref {
>>>>>                     path
>>>>> /nacm:nacm/nacm:groups/nacm:group/nacm:user-name;  //
>>>>>                     <== Point to some other list of network users
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Management access control principles
>>>>>
>>>>> Management access control is about which users are able to
>>>>> configure/run
>>>>> actions/the policies and rules. IMO, the most controversial aspect of
>>>>> this
>>>>> module has always been its new and creative management access control
>>>>> model. In
>>>>> this revision, the management principles have been remodeled greatly
>>>>> to fit in
>>>>> with NACM. I find this redesign very promising, but the result is
>>>>> still not
>>>>> quite ready for publication.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point where integration with NACM concepts is important is when it
>>>>> comes to
>>>>> allow some users to CRUD the NSF policies and rules themselves. There
>>>>> is now a
>>>>> leaf-list "owners" on each policy and rule which point to a list of
>>>>> NACM
>>>>> groups. My understanding is that the idea is that the NSF module
>>>>> should be seen
>>>>> as a service model that translate high level ownership information to
>>>>> specific
>>>>> NACM rules. It would be good to mention these ideas somewhere in the
>>>>> NSF
>>>>> document.
>>>>>
>>>>>   leaf-list owners {
>>>>>     type leafref {
>>>>>       path /nacm:nacm/nacm:groups/nacm:group/nacm:name;
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect the intent is that any user listed in a NACM group mentioned
>>>>> in the
>>>>> owners list would get full CRUD privileges for the contents of the
>>>>> rule the
>>>>> owners leaf sits on. That is never spelled out anywhere, however.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a little less clear how leaf-list owners on policy objects
>>>>> should be
>>>>> handled. Should owners listed on a policy object get full CRUD powers
>>>>> over the
>>>>> entire policy, including all the rules inside? Or would they need to
>>>>> be listed
>>>>> on the rules as well? Not clear. Is the intent that users not listed
>>>>> on the
>>>>> policy object are unable to create new rules, but to be able to update
>>>>> rules
>>>>> they are listed as owners of, if any?
>>>>>
>>>>> Who is allowed to create new policy objects? Should users that are not
>>>>> owners
>>>>> get read access to all the policies and rules?
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, there is an "owner" leaf on each rule with an identityref
>>>>> allowing
>>>>> operators to configure a role name like dept-head or sec-admin. It is
>>>>> marked
>>>>> mandatory, but never included in any of the examples at the end of the
>>>>> document. This makes me think this may be a remnant from bygone times
>>>>> and
>>>>> should be removed from the YANG. If not, an explanation of how to use
>>>>> this
>>>>> leaf, and how it interacts with "owners" needs to be added, and the
>>>>> examples
>>>>> updated.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. leafrefs crosspointing between policy instances
>>>>>
>>>>> There are six leafrefs that point to various objects inside a policy,
>>>>> e.g. a
>>>>> rule condition pointing to a device group name. None of them restrict
>>>>> what can
>>>>> be pointed to so that only names within the current policy are valid.
>>>>> It is
>>>>> therefore possible to configure the name of a device group defined in a
>>>>> different policy. I suspect this is not the intention. In order to
>>>>> restrict the
>>>>> leafrefs to the same policy, the following predicate can be added:
>>>>>
>>>>>                 leaf-list src-target {
>>>>>                   type leafref {
>>>>>                   path
>>>>>
>>>>> "/i2nsf-cfi-policy[policy-name=current()/../../../../../policy-name]/endpoint-group/device-group/name";
>>>>>                    // <== Add predicate
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Mandatory to implement all events, conditions, actions
>>>>>
>>>>> Each rule is defined with a choice of different events (admin, time),
>>>>> conditions (firewall, ddos, custom, threat-feed) and actions (pass,
>>>>> drop,
>>>>> alert, mirror, ...). Is the intent that all of these options should be
>>>>> mandatory to implement? The current model requires this. Also, would
>>>>> it make
>>>>> sense to allow additional mechanisms here? If so, it may be good to
>>>>> explain to
>>>>> readers how the set of choices and identities can be extended by
>>>>> implementations.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. Optional and mandatory elements
>>>>>
>>>>> In this revision of the module, 8 leafs have been marked mandatory. A
>>>>> few of
>>>>> them are list keys, which are conventionally not marked mandatory,
>>>>> since list
>>>>> keys are always mandatory. A few others are skipped in the XML
>>>>> examples at the
>>>>> end of the NSF document, which makes me believe they might not really
>>>>> be
>>>>> mandatory after all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Three leafs have a default, but most leafs are left optional without
>>>>> any
>>>>> default. In many cases I think I understand what it means to not set a
>>>>> leaf,
>>>>> but with the ones listed here, I don't think it clear at all. Either
>>>>> add a
>>>>> default to make it clear, make them mandatory if they should be, or
>>>>> explain in
>>>>> the leaf description what happens if not set.
>>>>>
>>>>> 493: leaf-list name
>>>>> 513: leaf-list protocol
>>>>> 531: leaf geo-ip-ipv4
>>>>> 541: leaf continent
>>>>> 562: leaf feed-server-ipv4
>>>>> 585: leaf payload-description
>>>>> 590: leaf-list content
>>>>> 600: leaf-list owners
>>>>> 870: leaf method
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. Indentation
>>>>>
>>>>> The YANG indentation is mostly wrong. Run the YANG text through pyang
>>>>> or some
>>>>> other tool that can indent the content correctly before you put it
>>>>> into a
>>>>> document.
>>>>>
>>>>> 7. YANG element naming
>>>>>
>>>>> The YANG convention is to not have lists on the top level in the YANG
>>>>> module,
>>>>> but to surround lists with a container. The surrounding container
>>>>> often has a
>>>>> name in the plural and the list in singluar, like this
>>>>>
>>>>> container interfaces {
>>>>>     list interface {
>>>>>
>>>>> To better fit into the world of IETF YANG modules, I'd recommend
>>>>> turning the
>>>>> top level list i2nsf-cfi-policy into this instead:
>>>>>
>>>>> container i2nsf-cfi-policies {
>>>>>     list policy {
>>>>>
>>>>> Further down, I would change container rule to rules:
>>>>>
>>>>> container rules {
>>>>>     list rule {
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, it is customary to not repeat the names of parent object in
>>>>> the names
>>>>> of elements. For example, in the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> list threat-feed-list
>>>>>     leaf feed-name
>>>>>     leaf feed-server-ipv4
>>>>>     leaf feed-server-ipv6
>>>>>     leaf feed-description
>>>>>
>>>>> all the leafs should normally not repeat "feed-". Just leaf name, leaf
>>>>> server-ipv4, leaf server-ipv6, leaf description. There are many more
>>>>> examples
>>>>> of this throughout the module.
>>>>>
>>>>> The condition choice has many containers with a single leaf inside
>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>> ddos-source). Their purpose is rather unclear to me. Remove?
>>>>>
>>>>>               container ddos-source {
>>>>>                 description
>>>>>                 "This represents the source.";
>>>>>                 leaf-list src-target {
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I find the name "src-target" rather confusing. How about
>>>>> "source"?
>>>>>
>>>>> 8. No date leaf
>>>>>
>>>>> The draft text near fig 2 talks about a date leaf. There is no date
>>>>> object in
>>>>> this revision of te YANG.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Date:  Date when this object was created or last modified"
>>>>>
>>>>> 9. leaf owner
>>>>>
>>>>> Near fig.3 leaf Owner is mentioned. Is this leaf still current?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Owner: This field contains the onwer of the rule.  For example,
>>>>>              the person who created it, and eligible for modifying it."
>>>>>
>>>>> 10. leaf packet-per-second
>>>>>
>>>>> This is now modeled as uint16. Is this future proof? Many packet flows
>>>>> on the
>>>>> internet exceed 64k pps.
>>>>>
>>>>> 11. container custon-source
>>>>>
>>>>> Misspelled. Should be custom-source
>>>>>
>>>>> 12. identity ddos
>>>>>
>>>>> Is ddos a malware file-type? This is not exactly in line with my
>>>>> intuition.
>>>>>
>>>>> 13. identity protocol-type
>>>>>
>>>>> There are other modules that already define protocol-types. Would it
>>>>> be worth
>>>>> reusing one of them?
>>>>>
>>>>> 14. identity palo-alto
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it a good IETF practice to list vendor names in modules? Can we
>>>>> consider
>>>>> this a protocol name? Is there perhaps an RFC/specification name for
>>>>> it that we
>>>>> could reference instead?
>>>>>
>>>>> 15. grouping ipsec-based-method
>>>>>
>>>>> This grouping contains a list which allows listing none of, either of
>>>>> or both
>>>>> of ipsecike and ikeless. Are all valid configurations?
>>>>>
>>>>> 16. leaf feed-name
>>>>>
>>>>> This leaf is the key in a list, which makes it possible to have at
>>>>> most one
>>>>> feed of each type. If it would make sense to configure more than one
>>>>> feed of
>>>>> the same type, the YANG needs to be updated here.
>>>>>
>>>>> 17. leaf-list content
>>>>>
>>>>> This leaflist is of type string. What is the format of this string?
>>>>> Does the
>>>>> name refer to something?
>>>>>
>>>>> 18. Event types
>>>>>
>>>>> container event has a choice between enforce-admin and time
>>>>> alternatives. Each
>>>>> of those choices have a leaf that allows the operator to configure an
>>>>> identityref to an enforce-type value. What does that mean? What would
>>>>> it mean
>>>>> if an operator configured admin == 'time' (or enforce-time == 'admin')?
>>>>>
>>>>> 19. leaf begin-time, end-time
>>>>>
>>>>> >From the examples, it can be seen that these are meant to be a time
>>>>> of day
>>>>> values. Currently they are modeled as yang:date-and-time, which means
>>>>> they are
>>>>> a concrete time a specific day, e.g. 2019-11-11T16:07. This needs to
>>>>> be changed
>>>>> in order to be what the modeler intended. Perhaps like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef time-of-day {
>>>>>     type string {
>>>>>         pattern '(2[0-3]|[01]?[0-9]):[0-5][0-9]';
>>>>>     }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> 20. leaf frequency
>>>>>
>>>>> This leaf is now modeled properly from a YANG perspective. But what
>>>>> does it
>>>>> mean? If this leaf is set to 'once-only', what exactly will happen
>>>>> only once?
>>>>> Please write a description that explains this.
>>>>>
>>>>> 21. Example in Fig.17
>>>>>
>>>>> The example contains XML that refers to "endpoint-group/user-group".
>>>>> There is
>>>>> no such element in the YANG.
>>>>>
>>>>> <endpoint-group
>>>>> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-cfi-policy">
>>>>>   <user-group>
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, there is nothing called range-ip-address,
>>>>> start-ip-address,
>>>>> end-ip-address. They are called range-ipv4-address, start-ipv4-address,
>>>>> end-ipv4-address.
>>>>>
>>>>>     <range-ip-address>
>>>>>       <start-ip-address>221.159.112.1</start-ip-address>
>>>>>       <end-ip-address>221.159.112.90</end-ip-address>
>>>>>     </range-ip-address>
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, there must not be any xmlns attribute on an closing XML tag.
>>>>> So
>>>>>
>>>>> </endpoint-group
>>>>> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-cfi-policy">
>>>>>
>>>>> should be
>>>>>
>>>>> </endpoint-group>
>>>>>
>>>>> This happens in several of the examples.
>>>>>
>>>>> 22. Example in Fig.18
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no element called policy any more. It's now i2nsf-cfi-policy.
>>>>>
>>>>>    <policy xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-cfi-policy">
>>>>>      <policy-name>security_policy_for_blocking_sns</policy-name>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rules are modeled in a container and list, both by the name rule.
>>>>> So there
>>>>> needs to be two <rule> tags.
>>>>>
>>>>>      <rule>
>>>>>        <rule-name>block_access_to_sns_during_office_hours</rule-name>
>>>>>
>>>>> The security-event element is marked mandatory in the YANG, but
>>>>> missing in the
>>>>> example. The times given below may be what is intended, but do not
>>>>> match the
>>>>> date format for the type used (which include a date, etc).
>>>>>
>>>>>        <event>
>>>>>          <time-information>
>>>>>            <begin-time>09:00</begin-time>
>>>>>            <end-time>18:00</end-time>
>>>>>          </time-information>
>>>>>        </event>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the example is not mentioning leaf frequency, it will have the
>>>>> value
>>>>> 'once-only'. Maybe explain what that means in the context of the
>>>>> example?
>>>>>
>>>>> The condition/firewall-condition says the src-target is mandatory and
>>>>> dest-target optional, exactly like below.
>>>>> condition/custom-destination/dest-target is mandatory and src-target is
>>>>> optional, exactly like below. Is this pure luck, or is there a logical
>>>>> explanation why exactly those should be mandatory, and the example use
>>>>> precisely those?
>>>>>
>>>>>        <condition>
>>>>>          <firewall-condition>
>>>>>            <source-target>
>>>>>              <src-target>employees</src-target>
>>>>>            </source-target>
>>>>>          </firewall-condition>
>>>>>          <custom-condition>
>>>>>            <destination-target>
>>>>>              <dest-target>sns-websites</dest-target>
>>>>>            </destination-target>
>>>>>          </custom-condition>
>>>>>
>>>>> The current YANG model does not allow setting both a
>>>>> firewall-condition and
>>>>> custom-condition. If that should be allowed, the model needs to
>>>>> change. Should
>>>>> it be possible to have multiple firewall- or other conditions? That is
>>>>> not
>>>>> currently possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> This example leaves out the mandatory leaf owner. Is that a sign that
>>>>> it should
>>>>> not be mandatory, or perhaps not exist at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> 23. Example in Fig.19
>>>>>
>>>>> This example lists a firewall-condition with no src-target, which is
>>>>> mandatory.
>>>>>
>>>>>       <firewall-condition>
>>>>>         <destination-target>
>>>>>           <dest-target>employees</dest-target>
>>>>>         </destination-target>
>>>>>       </firewall-condition>
>>>>>
>>>>> Under condition, there is a container rate-limit with a leaf
>>>>> packet-per-second.
>>>>> Is this a trigger value for the condition, or is it an actual limit
>>>>> that the
>>>>> system is expected to enforce? If it's a trigger, it may be good to
>>>>> find a
>>>>> clearer name. If it's enforced, it's placement under condition is
>>>>> deceiving.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a rule's action is set to 'rate-limit', to which rate will it be
>>>>> limited?
>>>>>
>>>>> 24. Security Considerations
>>>>>
>>>>> Section 10 in the NSF document under review is the Security
>>>>> Considerations. I
>>>>> think it would make sense to mention something about the management
>>>>> access
>>>>> control mechanism here, and its relation to NACM.
>>>>>
>>>>> (End of list)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> I2nsf mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ===========================
>>>> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
>>>> Associate Professor
>>>> Department of Software
>>>> Sungkyunkwan University
>>>> Office: [phone]
>>>> Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>>> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
>>>> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ===========================
>>> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
>>> Associate Professor
>>> Department of Software
>>> Sungkyunkwan University
>>> Office: [phone]
>>> Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
>>> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ===========================
>> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
>> Associate Professor
>> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
>> Sungkyunkwan University
>> Office: [phone]
>> Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
>> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
>>
>
>
> --
> ===========================
> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> Sungkyunkwan University
> Office: [phone]
> Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
>
> <Revision-Letter-for-I2NSF-Consumer-Facing-Interface-YANG-Data-Model-20200711-v1.pdf>
>
>
>

-- 
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: [phone]
Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>