Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16
"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> Sat, 14 August 2021 07:39 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 B97F23A0ECC for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Aug 2021 00:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.545
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.545 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, T_FREEMAIL_DOC_PDF=0.01, 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 l1W4YuURZWFN for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Aug 2021 00:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (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 53DF93A0EC2 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Aug 2021 00:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id x7so19105532ljn.10 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Aug 2021 00:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fQOoBGRKK6nDnfcoYm1v4rlNrhO3UvUDJx8j8wX2ePE=; b=hJNIk+mIRuoGKnZCaC6QLMMyxdg/Fw6NtOjvDRwxQ8wku0+3C5UHupfS+eNyOJ+OQ7 UDV2mWtc72bCZYKLRnbQUCZJH7Uem4K5j5EiZx+2MyFfo/otGXX3jbREVOQVMeTOv+0p wwRhRb/96t6kC+wgMIu2dzEQfOdC1PopILFA5XSN1veSG1q4mzuyo63acoRiC2CCxUYP jxgbIhjYeHcaTBR6n8eYIpJcgDJWaxgXrp2sIIlOkjVrn/XKTatCWHvfHwLO6nTXY/Sn xIVUgXQzoRPpiiPw0dC8MQ3x6w9lnXuKyEBh/cRKDGPGpPEwt/f6R7651fRN9DswMF2z 4jNg==
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=fQOoBGRKK6nDnfcoYm1v4rlNrhO3UvUDJx8j8wX2ePE=; b=ZqPvd274EkMarka3z51dtq8AAmGUAbEA8ncmKR8mSiKfSjZTSpHo/bDTaG83Ib689q 5bfprD5D6GN9k2Oqn12IQXTobRWw7DJ/KqY4YQFblXXpUhxFjSHhLcWv5nsOGWCJITbS rr4yvFKh6dGcTa4vX5qsiofpBaKfpuvJ9rUIKIEZ3aHygnYNKKy2CKxFg/sy1/70kBJ8 JtuqY2m6A+KJC7V1+ZvyapbXeDfEaJ/2TpSYqIsEIqrGJVBoi2h/ecdbCs/kSif8HDnh MpTkNIa+kvc97beoCawYcprXMjd3dBqHzPBjOdIRuuDo5hDMzsBlBP9Y2fEjsubzT5fJ 6eCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531jah7tMhtb9fhCDsGkoCe7sZbqviAR5XCfO5sf0VjHML8DzRrp n7/IukwkSnN9eqKoLwUmaBGUCTBU4FCAUXLJdVk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzQan0CWywv5VaA3rLgZsTOA3F//SUKeAZr4IM/Fob3BrsYsqyUD8m2Ytj2ttXBrNgjGoZljgqI8HG4tyCvn+s=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:894:: with SMTP id d20mr4489075ljq.483.1628926750070; Sat, 14 Aug 2021 00:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <SN6PR13MB23341DC28BD277887FBD69EC85419@SN6PR13MB2334.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <DB7PR07MB55468323E303445356630DE3A2419@DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <SN6PR13MB23346DE068162527EC61121F85419@SN6PR13MB2334.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <DB7PR07MB55469CA85B8ABDD2F9B961F3A2409@DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR07MB55469CA85B8ABDD2F9B961F3A2409@DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2021 16:38:31 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPK2DewE=r5YvMRuYrcP5wcwpVwZz2C_2VH+8d4ANS5u_yHaBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
Cc: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>, skku-iotlab-members <skku-iotlab-members@googlegroups.com>, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0000000000004dbe3505c98010b8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/fC-O0RyadI5vlx0fWrUhVI4J4m8>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16
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: Sat, 14 Aug 2021 07:39:26 -0000
Hi Tom, Here are the revision letter and revised draft reflecting your comments. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-17 Patrick and I worked together for this revision. Please let me know whether this version satisfies your comments or not. Thanks. Best Regards, Paul On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 8:45 PM tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote: > From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com> > Sent: 27 April 2021 16:49 > > Tom, > > Can you please provide the concrete suggestions to the authors on the > changes you like to see? > > This is the second time of the WGLC for the draft. It would be very > helpful to hear your suggestions during the WGLC window. > > Thank you very much > > <tp> > Linda, > Sorry about the timing but here goes; > > Not Ready IMHO > > This is one of six I2NSF I-D with YANG modules and there is a lot of > overlap between them but the functionality offered, the approach taken, > the structuring, the terminology used, varies between them which is > likely to create confusion (and errors) in the user. This I-D is mostly > a list of some 200 YANG identity which then appear in a YANG list to > show what is supported and by implication what is not. (I have > extracted the identity and list them at the end of this e-mail since > much of what I say is clearer when the list is visible in its entirety). > There are similar but different lists of YANG identity in > draft-ietf-i2nsf-customer-facing, draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing, > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf capability. > > I find the choice of identifiers here poor. Some have the > suffix -capability, others do not. Given the context in which the > module uses them e.g leaf-list sctp-capability, then I find that suffix > largely redundant. Ditto the suffix -action in the list of anti-ddos. > > Most identifier are multi-element e.g. > identity prefix-ipv6-address-flow-direction > and the element order means that they will collate with all the prefix, > range, exact together while ipv6-next-header will be somewhere > different. A user likely needs all the ipv4 together, all the ipv6 etc so > the > identifier should be > identity ipv6-address-prefix-flow-direction > so that all the ipv6, sctp, udp etc are together. With YANG, as with > many languages, the distinction between exact and range is moot; exact > is usually modelled with a range with 'start' equal to 'end' so you > could almost assume that both variants are supported and it is certainly > the least important aspect of the identifier so should come last in the > identifier if it is included at all (I would not). > > Functionally there are fewer protocols than other I2NSF I-D; http only > appears as a potential flood while draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing has > ssh, ftp, http, pop3, nat etc and draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing has ospf, > l2tp, eigrp, skip etc. Are these not some of these capabilities? > > YANG allows multiple identity to be derived from a common base which > makes it possible easily to e.g. reference just ip4, or ipv4 and ipv6, > or all such protocols. Not here. ipv4-capability is derived from > 'identity condition' along with many other quite different capabilities > such as > identity context-capability { > which renders that YANG capability(!) of little use. > draft-nsf-monitoring by contrast derives tcp, udp, icmp from a common > base of ipv4 or ipv6, both of which are in turn derived from 'identity > ip' which is derived from 'protocol-type' OK I disagree about the > suffiix -type but the structure there is what other IETF YANG modules > widely use and I think right. In this I-D there is no concept of > protocol - the identity for protocol are all derived from 'identity > condition' (along with much else, unrelated concepts IMHO) > > identity icmp-capability and identity icmpv6-capability are likewise > both derived from 'identity conditoin' when I would expect them to have > a common icmp base given how much overlap there is between icmp for v4 > and icmp for v6 and a likely need to refer the two combined. > > I-D nsf-monitoring is quite different here, deriving icmp from a base of > either ipv4 or ipv6, while deriving icmpv4 from ipv4 and icmpv6 from > ipv6. I think that approach much superior both in the choice of > identifiers, icmpv4 and icmpv6 as opposed to icmp and icmpv6, and in > allowing a simple reference to icmp in all its forms along with ipv4 or > ipv6 specific when needed. > > This I-D models identity ipv4-tos-dscp and identity > ipv6-traffic-class-dscp/identity exact-ipv6-flow-label; nsf-facing has > choices such as minimize-cost, maximize-reliability derived from a > choice of either identity type-of-service or identity traffic-class > which seems to be more in line with current thinking. > > With alarms, this I-D is more in line with others but with different > terminology, here it is memory-alarm, cpu-alarm, disk-alarm, > hardware-alarm, interface-alarm. I-D nsf-facing is the same but I-D > nsf-monitoring has mem-usage-alarm, cpu-usage-alarm, disk-usage-alarm, > hw-failure-alarm, ifnet-state-alarm. Not wrong but confusingly > different. > > This I-D has context-capability e.g. user, geography, ACL which I > struggle to relate to the other I-D. (In passing, I would have thought > ACL a sine > qua none for any I2NSF work). > > This I-D derives identity rule-log, identity session-log from > log-action-capability. nsf-facing is the same but comsumer-facing has > identity log, identity syslog, identity session-log derived from > secondary-action; > > Here ingress-action/egress-action/default-action are a common base for > identity pass, identity drop, identity alert, identity mirror while I-D > consumer-facing has primary-action as a base for identities pass, drop, > alert, rate-limit, mirror and I-D nsf-facing has pass, drop, reject, > alert, mirror. > > resolution-strategy-capability is the base for identity fmr, identity > lmr, identity pmr, identity pmre, identity pmrn and this is the same as > I-D nsf-facing(!) > > This I-D uses advanced-nsf-capability as the base for > anti-virus-capability, anti-ddos-capability, ips-capability, > voip-volte-capability. I-D consumer-facing has security-event-type as a > base for ddos, spyware, trojan, ransomware while I-D nsf-facing uses > content-security-control as a base for firewall, antivirus, ips, ids, > url-filtering, voip-volte, mail-filtering, file-blocking, pkt-capture, > application-control and then I-D nsf-monitoring has nsf-attack-type as > a base for botnet-attack-type and virus-type, and virus-type is then > the base for trojan, worm, macro. Here, antivirus is the base for > identity detect and identity allow-list which for me is a completely > different set of concepts. > > Returning to ddos, here the I-D diverge widely. This I-D > has 10 derived identity, with the only appearance of http in the I-D but > which it separates from https; likewise it splits icmp-flood from icmpv6 > flood (without a common icmp base) and dns-request from dns-reply, again > the only appearance of the dns protocol and, again, with no common base. > > I-D nsf-monitoring uses a base of flood type from which it derives 14 > identity adding syn-ack, fin-rst, tcp-con. It keeps the dns-request, > dns-reply but gives a choice of icmp, icmpv4, icmpv6 but does not derive > the last two from the first. (What is meant by 'icmp'? beware, it all > depends on the author, could be v4 could be v4 and v6, you cannot tell). > > I-D nsf-facing is quite close to I-D nsf-monitoring for ddos but uses a > base of attack-mitigation-control; joins http and https in identity > http-and-https-flood, splits dns into dns and dns-amp rather than query > and reply, adds oversized-icmp (icmp-... please) and then tacks on > ip-sweep, port-scanning, ping-of-death, teardrop, tracert which may be > attacks but are not ddos and would seem to make no appearance in this > capabilities I-D. > > This I-D uses voip-volte-capability as a base for voip-volte-call-id and > identity user-agent. I-D nsf-facing derives identity voip-volte from > content-security-control (not a concept I see in the capabilities I-D) > while draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm would appear to expect > there to be an identity 'voice-id'. > > No one I-D on its own is wrong and every I-D has parts that I think just > right - it is just when they are put together > it all gets confusing. What I lack is an underlying information > model which separates out the different concepts and gives them > identifiers for these YANG I-D to use both in nomenclature and it going > into more detail. A monitoring I-D may specify more detailed flood > prevention e.g but I should be able to refer it back to a capability in > this I-D. RFC8329 is not that model. > > I append below the list of identity I have extracted from the > capabilities I-D. I think that seeing just the list of identifiers > highlights the challenges a user will have. I have similar lists for > customer-facing, nsf-facing, nsf-monitoring. In YANG the 'base' is > specified after the 'identity' statement. For the purposes of this > review I find it clearer to place the 'base' first and then list the > identity derived from that the base. The order of the identity > statements is the same as in the I-D > > Tom Petch > > > /* > * Identities draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16 > */ > > base event; > 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 { > > base condition; > identity context-capability { > > base context-capability; > identity access-control-list { > identity application-layer-filter { > identity target { > identity user { > identity group { > identity geography { > > base directional-capability; > identity unidirectional { > identity bidirectional { > > base condition; > identity ipv4-capability { > > base ipv4-capability; > identity exact-ipv4-header-length { > identity range-ipv4-header-length { > identity ipv4-tos-dscp { > identity exact-ipv4-total-length { > identity range-ipv4-total-length { > identity ipv4-id { > identity ipv4-fragment-flags { > identity exact-ipv4-fragment-offset { > identity range-ipv4-fragment-offset { > identity exact-ipv4-ttl { > identity range-ipv4-ttl { > identity ipv4-protocol { > identity prefix-ipv4-address-flow-direction { > identity prefix-ipv4-address { > identity prefix-ipv4-src-address { > identity prefix-ipv4-dst-address { > identity range-ipv4-address-flow-direction { > identity range-ipv4-address { > identity range-ipv4-src-address { > identity range-ipv4-dst-address { > identity ipv4-ip-opts { > identity ipv4-geo-ip { > > base condition; > identity ipv6-capability { > > base ipv6-capability; > identity ipv6-traffic-class-dscp { > identity exact-ipv6-flow-label { > identity range-ipv6-flow-label { > identity exact-ipv6-payload-length { > identity range-ipv6-payload-length { > identity ipv6-next-header { > identity exact-ipv6-hop-limit { > identity range-ipv6-hop-limit { > identity prefix-ipv6-address-flow-direction { > identity prefix-ipv6-address { > identity prefix-ipv6-src-address { > identity prefix-ipv6-dst-address { > identity range-ipv6-address-flow-direction { > identity range-ipv6-address { > identity range-ipv6-src-address { > identity range-ipv6-dst-address { > identity ipv6-header-order { > identity ipv6-options { > identity ipv6-hop-by-hop { > identity ipv6-routing-header { > identity ipv6-fragment-header { > identity ipv6-destination-options { > identity ipv6-geo-ip { > > > base condition; > identity tcp-capability { > > base tcp-capability; > identity exact-tcp-port-num-flow-direction { > identity exact-tcp-port-num { > identity exact-tcp-src-port-num { > identity exact-tcp-dst-port-num { > identity range-tcp-port-num-flow-direction { > identity range-tcp-port-num { > identity range-tcp-src-port-num { > identity range-tcp-dst-port-num { > identity tcp-flags { > identity tcp-options { > > > base condition; > identity udp-capability { > > base udp-capability; > identity exact-udp-port-num-flow-direction { > identity exact-udp-port-num { > identity exact-udp-src-port-num { > identity exact-udp-dst-port-num { > identity range-udp-port-num-flow-direction { > identity range-udp-port-num { > identity range-udp-src-port-num { > identity range-udp-dst-port-num { > identity exact-udp-total-length { > identity range-udp-total-length { > > base sctp-capability; [**yes really] > identity exact-sctp-port-num-flow-direction { > identity exact-sctp-port-num { > identity exact-sctp-src-port-num { > identity exact-sctp-dst-port-num { > identity range-sctp-port-num-flow-direction { > identity range-sctp-port-num { > identity range-sctp-src-port-num { > identity range-sctp-dst-port-num { > identity sctp-verification-tag { > identity sctp-chunk-type { > > > base dccp-capability; > identity exact-dccp-port-num-flow-direction { > identity exact-dccp-port-num { > identity exact-dccp-src-port-num { > identity exact-dccp-dst-port-num { > identity range-dccp-port-num-flow-direction { > identity range-dccp-port-num { > identity range-dccp-src-port-num { > identity range-dccp-dst-port-num { > identity dccp-service-code { > > > > base condition; > identity icmp-capability { > > > base icmp-capability; > identity icmp-type { > identity icmp-code { > > base condition; > identity icmpv6-capability { > > base icmpv6-capability; > identity icmpv6-type { > identity icmpv6-code { > > > base condition; > identity url-capability { > > > base url-capability; > identity pre-defined { > identity user-defined { > > > base log-action-capability; > identity rule-log { > identity session-log { > > > base ingress-action-capability; > base egress-action-capability; > base default-action-capability; > identity pass { > identity drop { > identity alert { > identity mirror { > > > base egress-action-capability; > identity invoke-signaling { > identity forwarding { > identity redirection { > > > base resolution-strategy-capability; > identity fmr { > identity lmr { > identity pmr { > identity pmre { > identity pmrn { > > base advanced-nsf-capability; > identity anti-virus-capability { > identity anti-ddos-capability { > identity ips-capability { > identity voip-volte-capability { > > > base anti-virus-capability; > identity detect { > identity allow-list { > > base anti-ddos-capability; > identity syn-flood-action { > identity udp-flood-action { > identity http-flood-action { > identity https-flood-action { > identity dns-request-flood-action { > identity dns-reply-flood-action { > identity icmp-flood-action { > identity icmpv6-flood-action { > identity sip-flood-action { > identity detect-mode { > identity baseline-learning { > > > base ips-capability; > identity signature-set { > identity ips-exception-signature { > > > base voip-volte-capability; > identity voip-volte-call-id { > identity user-agent { > > base ipsec-capability; > identity ike { > identity ikeless { > > > > > > > Linda > > -----Original Message----- > From: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 10:44 AM > To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>; i2nsf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16 > > From: I2nsf <i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Linda Dunbar < > linda.dunbar@futurewei.com> > Sent: 27 April 2021 16:06 > > I2NSF WG, > > As expected, there is no issue with the second time WGLC for > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model. > > <tp> > Sigh, I did not know there was a Last Call in progress, I did not see that > on the datatracker:-( I spent last week going round in circles trying to > dovetail the five I2NSF YANG modules and this morning finally decided that > it could not be done. > > The general concern I have is that there are a number of YANG modules that > are doing the same thing in different ways, with different terminology, > different technology, which is going to give the user heartache IMHO > > Today I read RFC8329 hoping that it would give one clear set of right > terminology but it does not help much; thus s.9.2 therein is rather vague > with question marks in places. The various YANG modules are clearly in the > same ballpark as the RFC but perhaps not on the same base e.g. the RFC has > pass, deny, mirror while this I-D has pass, drop, alert, mirror and > differences like that are repeated many times. In places, that may be by > design but in others I believe that it is not I will post some more > concrete examples on Wednesday. I will seek to use 'capability' as the > base, the refer4ence, and point out where the other four diverge > > I would say that sdn-ipsec gets it right but I also note that the IESG > made in excess of 150 changes to the I-D before approving it which I think > on the one hand was necessary but on the other hand seems a profligate use > of AD time. More could have been done beforehand IMHO. > > Tom Petch > > This email is to confirm that the WGLC for the > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16 is completed. We will move this > draft to IESG. > > Thank you very much for the work. > > Best Regards, > Linda Dunbar > > From: Linda Dunbar > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 4:37 PM > To: i2nsf@ietf.org > Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16 > > Hello Working Group, > > When I2NSF WG closed the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model > in Dec 2019 ( > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fi2nsf%2F%3Fq%3Ddraft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model%26f_from%3DLinda%2520Dunbar&data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C2db646bb15a843e2627508d909934590%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637551350416364721%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=gTCjj1AgX850nVjMqwhSUYpi261P%2FIEPVEDlzY%2FuVs8%3D&reserved=0 > ), there was a formative reference to draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 which > was stale. > > After the review, IESG decided to throw the draft back to I2NSF WG and > requested the WG to reach the consensus to sunset the > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05. The WG finally reached the consensus in > Oct 2020 ( > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fi2nsf%2F%3Fq%3Ddraft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model%26f_from%3DLinda%2520Dunbar&data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C2db646bb15a843e2627508d909934590%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637551350416374715%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=CwsgBrh%2FRpLX2x5TP%2BplrmO1ckr3VO4F56TN21h5LOM%3D&reserved=0 > ) > > > Many thanks to the authors to merge all the relevant content from > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 and addressed all the comments from YANG > Doctor review and > > This email starts a two-weeks Working Group Last Call on > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C2db646bb15a843e2627508d909934590%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637551350416374715%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=RDAu7tXiFbH1WtgyJo2KL1idgWJ3s6pwQjVvJ60TLM8%3D&reserved=0 > > This poll runs until April 13, 2021. > > We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to > this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with > IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, please > respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any > relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from > all the Authors and Contributors. > > If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please > explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been > disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > > Thank you. > > Linda & Yoav > > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >
- [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-cap… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… t petch
- Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong