Re: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm

Hi Donald,
I have reflected your comments on page 5 in the revised I-D as follows:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-23

The efficient and flexible provisioning of network functions by a
Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) system supports rapid
deployment of newly developed functions.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 7:42 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
> Here is the revision of CFI with your comments:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-23
>
> Patrick and I have reflected your comments on the revision, and
> I attach the revision letter.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 1:40 AM t petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/07/2022 18:44, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>> > Sue,
>> >
>> > Thank you very much for the offer.
>> >
>> > The unsolved comments are from Tom Petch: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for
>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16<
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/d_Wk5fH35Jo_cdz4D0QZN5VNhFA/>
>> > There are several responses to address Tom Petch's comments. Just Tom
>> hasn't sent feedback if he is satisfied with the response.
>>
>> Weelll, probably as satisfied as I am going to get.
>>
>> I have reviewed cfi (customer facing interface-dm)-22 and compared some
>> of it with capability-32.  I have not - but hope to - compare against
>> nsf-facing; nor have I re-read all the posts to the list but will.
>>
>> I do think that cfi is now in much better shape.  I do see capability as
>> the key, the base, set of definitions against which the others should be
>> judged.  capability says whether or not the box can do it, the others
>> tell you how to do it.
>>
>> With that in mind, I am unconvinced about the response to my comments
>> about icmp.  The treatment is different.  capability deals in
>> icmpv4/icmpv6, type/code; cfi deals in echo/echo-reply which is the sort
>> of user interface I am used to and would expect a security practitioner
>> to be familiar with so some words about the mapping, referring to the
>> IANA website for all the detail, could help users.  I would put that in
>> the body of the text not the YANG module
>>
>> Likewise, cfi has primary and secondary action which makes a lot of
>> sense but what is the capability that makes that possible? capability
>> has ingress-action, egress-action, default-action which seems a
>> different axis to me.  Again, some words about how the two relate could
>> help, in the body of the document.
>>
>> Again continent is present in cfi but not in capability.  Can a user
>> tell if the capability is present?  I expect not; as ever, worth a note.
>>
>> signature-set and signature-type sound the same but seem different.
>> This is an aspect of security that I am not familiar with, at least not
>> in those terms.
>>
>> Finally, there are some minor editorial glitches.
>>
>> RFC8075 I see in the YANG module; it needs adding to the I-D References.
>>
>> page 17 text version last sentence I cannot parse; perhaps a missing
>> preposition
>>
>> the two rate-limit objects could do with units - I note that they are
>> present in the examples
>>
>> page 55 text version [STIX] looks like an XML anchor but YANG modules
>> must be plain text.
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>> >
>> > Linda
>> >
>> > From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 12:21 PM
>> > To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>; i2nsf@ietf.org
>> > Subject: RE: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for
>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm
>> >
>> > Linda:
>> >
>> > I will review the document by  Thursday (7/14) and send in a review of
>> the document.   Would you let me know what WG LC comments were not
>> addressed?
>> >
>> > Cheers, Sue
>> >
>> > From: I2nsf <i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org>> On
>> Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 1:17 PM
>> > To: i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
>> > Subject: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for
>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm
>> >
>> >
>> > I2NF WG,
>> >
>> > draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm WGLC was inconclusive due
>> to lack of support and some LC comments not properly addressed. There
>> appeared to be limited reviews of the document during the WGLC
>> > See the discussion history: [I2nsf] WGLC for
>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16<
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fi2nsf%2FMFOohjnJ9fbylLB9eyccMRhrp04%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cc95feb0ac382419474b808da642adfd0%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637932432560667469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=f9Jlz0HgQw7NO%2BKer356WyaN9toprO8WCPEUBGhkAXI%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> >
>> > To proceed to publication more reviews and support from the WG for
>> publication is needed.
>> > We really appreciate more people reviewing the document, especially the
>> people who are not the authors.
>> >
>> > Thank you
>> > Linda Dunbar
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > I2nsf mailing list
>> > I2nsf@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> I2nsf mailing list
>> I2nsf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>>
>