Re: [I2nsf] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Murray,
Let me remind you of your action on this draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/

We authors believe that we addressed your comments as much as possible.

I hope this draft will move forward through your review and lifting up your
block.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:50 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Murray,
> This revision has addressed your comments:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-25
>
> I attach the revision letter.
>
> Could you check this revision?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 2:16 PM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-24: Discuss
>>
>> 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I'd like to talk about the two SHOULDs in Section 1, the Introduction.
>> Normative guidance is normally in the meat of the document where the
>> protocol
>> material is being presented.  Here, the Introduction says:
>>
>> * "the security controller SHOULD be able to request the DMS for NSFs
>> that have
>> the required security capabilities"
>>
>> * "describes the operations that SHOULD be performed by the Security
>> Controller
>> and the DMS via the Registration Interface using the defined model"
>>
>> I think you need a (probably small) section after Section 2 that lays out
>> these
>> normative requirements for controller behavior if that's what the intent
>> is
>> here.
>>
>> If the intent was just a plain old "should" and not a BCP 14-style
>> SHOULD, then
>> this is a pretty easy fix.  But the language you're using here appears to
>> be
>> asserting that controllers are expected to behave a particular way.
>>
>> It also makes me wonder if this shouldn't be updating some other document
>> if
>> you're extending required behavior of an I2NSF component that was defined
>> someplace else.  I looked around for a document defining "security
>> controller"
>> and couldn't find an obvious one, so I'm at a loss for what to suggest.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The shepherd writeup seems to have skipped answering part of the first
>> question: Why is this the right document status?
>>
>> I'm also confused by the answer to question 18.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> I2nsf mailing list
>> I2nsf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>>
>