[I2nsf] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-12: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-12: No Objection

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Eric's DISCUSS position about the information model vs. data model
publications.

The smashed-together list of references at the top of Section 5 could use some
formatting.

I tripped over several of the editorial points Barry found.  Here's one more. 
In Section 3:

   o  If a network administrator wants to block malicious users for IPv6
      traffic, he sends a security policy rule to block the users to the
      Network Operator Management System using the I2NSF User (i.e., web
      application).

Block malicious users "for" IPv6 traffic?  I don't understand.  Perhaps "block
IPv6 traffic from malicious users"?