Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-dm-17

["Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Qin,
Here is the revision of the I2NSF Registration Interface Draft with your
comments:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-21

Patrick and I have reflected all your comments on the revision, especially
the augmentation of
I2NSF Capability for I2NSF Registration Interface.
I attach the revision letter for your convenience.

Thanks for your valuable comments.

Linda,
I believe that this Registration Interface YANG Data Model Draft is ready
for the submission to the IESG.

Best Regards,
Paul


On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 3:59 PM Qin Wu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Paul:
>
> Thank for the update, I am still struggling about the relation between
> capability model and registration interface model.
>
> First, the registration interface model imports ietf-i2nsf-capability and
> reuses some grouping defined in ietf-i2nsf-capability, this is not
> augmented model from ietf-i2nsf-capability. It is a new model which use
> some building block in some other existing models.
>
> Augmented model should augment from ietf-i2nsf-capability with additional data nodes, e.g., here is IPv4 unicast routing management model which is augmented from ietf-routing
>
>      augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route" {
>
>        when "derived-from-or-self(../../rt:address-family, "
>
>           + "'v4ur:ipv4-unicast')" {
>
>          description
>
>            "This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
>
>        }
>
> This gives you a sense what augmented model look like.
>
> Second, Can ietf-i2nsf-capability module be used independent from ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface module? Is ietf-i2nsf-capability used in the same registration interface as  ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface module?
>
> Third: I re-read section 4 of draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm, it said:
>
> “
>
>    The I2NSF registration interface is used by Security Controller and
>
>    Developer's Management System (DMS) in I2NSF framework.  The
>
>    following summarizes the operations done through the registration
>
>    interface:
>
>
>
>    1)  DMS registers NSFs and their capabilities to Security Controller
>
>        via the registration interface.  DMS also uses the registration
>
>        interface to update the capabilities of the NSFs registered
>
>        previously.
>
>
>
>    2)  In case that Security Controller fails to find some required
>
>        capabilities from any registered NSF that can provide, Security
>
>        Controller queries DMS about NSF(s) having the required
>
>        capabilities via the registration interface.
>
> ”
>
> I feel this registration interface is designed only for administrators to register NSF capability, In case that Security Controller fails to find some required
>
> capabilities from any registered NSF that can provide, it can also auto detect required capabilities by itself from NSF, therefore simply define query RPC
>
> to query capabilities from DMS seems not sufficient, unless you explicitly rule this auto detection out from this document.
>
>
>
> -Qin
>
> *发件人:* Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *发送时间:* 2022年8月31日 19:14
> *收件人:* Qin Wu <[e-mail]>
> *抄送:* [e-mail]; Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; Linda Dunbar <
> [e-mail]>; Patrick Lingga <[e-mail]>;
> skku-iotlab-members <[e-mail]>; Mr. Jaehoon
> Paul Jeong <[e-mail]>
> *主题:* Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-dm-17
>
>
>
> Hi Qin,
>
> Here is the revision reflecting your detailed comments on the I2NSF
> Registration Interface:
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-20
>
>
>
> Patrick and I have revised this draft along with the attached revision
> letter.
>
>
>
> Could you confirm whether this revision looks good to you or not?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 6:42 PM Qin Wu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi, Paul:
>
> Thank you for inviting me to review this draft.
>
> I am a little confused about the relation of this draft with
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model
>
> See quoted text in draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model
>
> “
>
>    This document provides an information model and the corresponding
>
>    YANG data model [RFC6020][RFC7950] that defines the capabilities of
>
>    NSFs to centrally manage the capabilities of those NSFs.  The NSFs
>
>    can register their own capabilities into a Network Operator
>
>    Management (Mgmt) System (i.e., Security Controller) with this YANG
>
>    data model through the registration interface [RFC8329].
>
>
>
> ”
>
> And quote text in draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-dm
>
> “
>
>    This document describes an information model (see Section 4) and a
>
>    YANG [RFC7950] data model (see Section 5) for the I2NSF Registration
>
>    Interface [RFC8329] between the security controller and the
>
>    developer's management system (DMS) to support NSF capability
>
>    registration and query via the registration interface.
>
>
>
> ”
>
> I am wondering which YANG data model is exchanged in the registration
> interface.
>
> Shouldn’t YANG data model defined in draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-dm
> augment the YANG model defined in
>
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model.
>
>
>
> In addition, I think registration interface seems not mandatory interface,
> security controller in some other case can
>
> Learn capability NFV orchestrators, or NSF can expose dynamic capability
> to security controller.
>
>
>
> Besides register NSF, I am wondering what other data or information can be
> registered? I assume there are a lot.
>
> Therefore I would suggest to limit the scope of this registration
> interface, only focus NSF capability registration.
>
> The title should reflect this.
>
>
>
> *For data model and information model definition, I think you should refer
> to RFC3444.*
>
> For NSF access information, I am wondering whether management protocol
> should also be part of access information.
>
> Regarding performance capability, I assume it is related to software or
> hardware, or firmware specification,
>
> Naming it as performance capability seems confusing to me.
>
>
>
> -Qin
>
> ---------- 전달된 메일 ----------
> 보낸사람: *Linda Dunbar* <[e-mail]>
> 날짜: 2022년 6월 11일 (토) 오전 3:13
> 제목: [I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-dm-17
> 받는사람: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>
>
>
> Hello Working Group,
>
>
>
> Many thanks to the authors of draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-dm-17 to
> address all the comments from YANG Doctor review, SecDir review and OpsDIR
> review.
>
>
>
> This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call
> on draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-dm-17
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/
>
>
>
> This poll runs until July 1, 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>
> --
>
> ===========================
> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
>
> Department Head
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> Sungkyunkwan University
> Office: [phone]
> Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
>
>