Re: [I2nsf] WG Adoption call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-04

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Questions to the Authors:

Is the “+--rw multi-tenancy” branch the attribute profile for “one tenant”? or list of multiple “tenants” with the attributes listed for one tenant?

Thank you very much.

Linda


From: I2nsf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 6:05 PM
To: John Strassner <[e-mail]>
Cc: Rakesh Kumar <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; SecCurator_Team <[e-mail]>; Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>; Xialiang (Frank) <[e-mail]>; Brian Kim <[e-mail]>; Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] WG Adoption call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-04

Hi John,
Thanks for your constructive suggestions on our draft. :-)
We authors will clarify your suggestions on the next revision.

You can give us your advice on our next revision.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul


On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:46 AM, John Strassner <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
IMHO, the purpose of a WG adopting a draft is to acknowledge that the draft is a good starting point for the work that WG wants to accomplish. To be perfectly clear, I am NOT objecting on the completeness of the document. Rather, I am objecting on the technical correctness of the starting point.

I do NOT feel that the proposed documents represent a good starting point. Ignoring things that can be easily fixed (e.g., grammar), there are a host of problems, such as:
   - what, exactly, is this draft trying to do? I thought I would see YANG for policy rules sent over the Consumer-Facing Interface.
     Instead, I see the name of the interface, whose first element is multi-tenancy, that also contains policies? Policies do not care
     about multi-tenancy. They do care about domains. The organization of the YANG is incorrect.
   - sec 4: in the ieft-i2nsf-cf-interface module
      - why is multi-tenancy at the top of the tree? Shouldn't a DOMAIN be able to have multiple tenants?
      - why does a domain have an authentication-method? First, multiple such methods should be able to be used. Second, how would a domain know what an authentication method even is?
      - why is tenant a sibling of domain, and not a child?
      - why is domain a leaf within policy-tenant? This should be a reference, and why doesn't domain have a reference to policy-tenant?
      - policy roles have nothing to do with multi-tenancy - why are they here?

 I could go on, but even the above means that the rest of the YANG will be wrong.

Therefore, the document is NOT a good starting point, and will NOT accelerate the path to getting a good RFC.

regards,
John

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


The authors of I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-04

Have requested working group adoption of this draft.

Please bear in mind that WG Adoption doesn’t mean that the draft current content is ready, WG Adoption only means that it is a good basis for a working group to work on.

While all feedback is helpful, comments pro or con with explanations are much more helpful than just "yes please" or "no thank you".

Thank you.

Linda & Yoav


_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf



--
regards,
John

_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf



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