Re: [I2nsf] Fwd: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
Linda Dunbar <dunbar.ll@gmail.com> Mon, 14 June 2021 13:15 UTC
Return-Path: <dunbar.ll@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 A3A673A240B for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 06:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 noWZTvV4-b27 for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 06:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62e.google.com (mail-ej1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62e]) (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 E27023A2402 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 06:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id ce15so16602371ejb.4 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 06:15:33 -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=U4PUEtgPW6HoecOV1xlxTO/e/eD28XsmG8IntOuHZII=; b=baWzV8TNO56bN+UTMJB/veItW3dATBSUNoxr7+6+TdXZwrhxW+OGFVBfI73MAwBW7i f94N+tzh6URCK/lK4qu5A47uzYcdU6LhVC/KTFX3ESLEPmJwhnXGSrRXCcBLPTKRlq+k cAl8XtSBoeCzsCKPUexX5435J3MHSaDB26J2MvsH2QVrkdty/QhvsSz9Zk5DrFwjYGwi 203iZuyhFQHh7n5QBDdz1fkMaGgrNaWL0xCqHUxckRhz0v3qXiVJKeaZtZY1uZY7IqKk J7sQpaGrDu83x/o6Gqw5r+Em3JPXyAguY0OEdn+2L/qmHU4Y35V/HwLQWn69kPqP25M7 N5eg==
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=U4PUEtgPW6HoecOV1xlxTO/e/eD28XsmG8IntOuHZII=; b=buFbmgRq+BrASv3mouYD8h2bcFvHamdm+xRdXhdkOeA40h29fxO/6V3yq+8ZygWtjb LPP8vCdiLmPK0LrIGNOJ8pvNFcVgICVUUXuuLSguBAEjlOqkhCjeikoxZdAAU0g9hveV g5SYFJnW9eaFqhBsJLc6MLjIx6zEZq+9ITSU1i9Q2gWw78h1NBcbM7Fwc6qS3cPQpqV1 FH7dED9pq4oa18yfIeTJP6qdIPl1B9A7HEj0Tna1aDcDVw5XRx+OHhuv/6A/1mfJActB CpTpT0ltwxAKQhk6rDKGiIjqPqlEJkUZgJktXsf2SdjHZYK+cx3CkXyBWk80y34MJIhH Sirw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533esD13Y7gH2K4C1/Vt/OmG/ZcvBrtWs9tQbNL+aPwyR0jqjJ1J 5nMG7RzsictAEgWMYI9bYUH6lmHTI4i1ixIDfTw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxpra/oYVOPoPbxMQSco2EhjS+kas4ODqfDa3M4QbSkba8hb5vt+28omssSGFJoVp/LYxklg4Xajis9pFmt43A=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:b2d1:: with SMTP id cf17mr15573418ejb.225.1623676526951; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 06:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210610205829.E2527F407AE@rfc-editor.org> <6BCE4D74-963A-4CF6-9CA5-E5FCA01340F0@um.es>
In-Reply-To: <6BCE4D74-963A-4CF6-9CA5-E5FCA01340F0@um.es>
From: Linda Dunbar <dunbar.ll@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:15:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CAP_bo1bigw1b4FORjL3zO05p-AUYwJ11OsqZka=s9-_fVRqrFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rafa Marin-Lopez <rafa@um.es>
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, Gabriel Lopez <gabilm@um.es>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, Fernando Pereniguez-Garcia <fernando.pereniguez@cud.upct.es>, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009e80d905c4b9a6cf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/wgYqzK9HmE1fTRC7WVoYKzeRCeE>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Fwd: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
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: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 13:15:40 -0000
The suggested change is reasonable. No objection. Linda Dunbar On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 2:23 AM Rafa Marin-Lopez <rafa@um.es> wrote: > Dear I2NSF WG members: > > We have received a suggestion from the RFC editor about a possible change > in the title: > > Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection —> > > A* YANG Data Model for Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow > Protection* > > We think this is reasonable and it is inline with the document. > > If you do not have any objection, we can apply this change. Any thoughts? > > Best Regards. > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > *De: *rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > *Asunto: **Re: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 > <draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14.txt> NOW AVAILABLE* > *Fecha: *10 de junio de 2021, 22:58:29 CEST > *Para: *rafa@um.es, gabilm@um.es, fernando.pereniguez@cud.upct.es > *Cc: *rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, i2nsf-ads@ietf.org, i2nsf-chairs@ietf.org, > ynir.ietf@gmail.com > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!--[rfced] We note that most of the recently published RFCs containing > YANG modules format their titles as "A YANG Data Model for...", for > example: > > RFC 8022 - A YANG Data Model for Routing Management > RFC 7407 - A YANG Data Model for SNMP Configuration > RFC 7317 - A YANG Data Model for System Management > RFC 7277 - A YANG Data Model for IP Management > > Please consider whether the title of this document should be updated. > --> > > > 2) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we change "while" to "whereas" here? > This would make it clear that the intended meaning is a contrast > rather than "at the same time". > > Original: > Therefore, the NSF will only have support for > IPsec while key management functionality is moved to the I2NSF > Controller. > --> > > > 3) <!--[rfced] We see a number of author-inserted comments in the .xml > file for this document. We are unsure if these have been resolved. > Please review and let us know if these can be deleted or if they need > to be addressed. > --> > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI: Note that the YANG modules have been updated per > the formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns. > --> > > > 5) <!--[rfced] In Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.3, should "rw enable?" > and "leaf enable" be "rw enabled?" (as used in RFC 8340 ad most > published RFCs) and "leaf enabled" (as used in most published RFCs)? > > Original: > rw enable? boolean > ... > leaf enable { > --> > > > 6) <!--[rfced] RFC 2560 is referenced in the YANG module in Section 5.2.3 > but is not mentioned anywhere else in the text. May we add it as a > Normative Reference and to the introductory text in Section 5.2.3? > --> > > > 7) <!--[rfced] In tree diagram in Section 5.3.1, the two lines that > include "ipsec-protocol-parameters" are one character too long to > fit in the space allowed in the txt output file. Please let us know > how to adjust this so that it will fit. > --> > > > 8) <!--[rfced] In the Security Considerations section, the text > does not exactly match what appears on > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>. > Paragraph 5 of the YANG boilerplate text is missing. This seems > intentional, but we'd like to confirm that this is correct. > --> > > > 9) <!--[rfced] The following reference has been superseded > by a 2021 version. Would you like for it to be updated? > > Original: > [ITU-T.X.690] > "Recommendation ITU-T X.690", August 2015. > > 2021 version: > [ITU-T.X.690] > International Telecommunication Union, "Information > technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic > Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and > Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation > X.690, ISO/IEC 8825-1, February 2021. > --> > > > 10) <!--[rfced] Should "SaaS" be expanded as "Software as a Service" > or "Storage as a Service"? > > Original: > For example, SD-WAN technologies are providing > dynamic and on-demand VPN connections between branch offices, or > between branches and SaaS cloud services. > --> > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of > the online Style Guide > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let > us know if any changes are needed. > --> > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/ap/jm > > On 6/10/21 3:55 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2021/06/10 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email with one of the following, > using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see > your changes: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email s > tating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’ > as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-xmldiff1.html > > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own > diff files of the XML. > > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.original.v2v3.xml > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates > only: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.form.xml > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9061 (draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14) > > Title : Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow > Protection > Author(s) : R. Marin-Lopez, G. Lopez-Millan, F. Pereniguez-Garcia > WG Chair(s) : Linda Dunbar, Yoav Nir > Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Benjamin Kaduk > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD > Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC) > Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia > 30100 Murcia - Spain > Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: rafa@um.es <rafa@um.es> > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >
- [I2nsf] Fwd: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-ietf-i2… Rafa Marin-Lopez
- Re: [I2nsf] Fwd: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-iet… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [I2nsf] Fwd: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-iet… Diego R. Lopez
- Re: [I2nsf] Fwd: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-iet… Rafa Marin-Lopez
- Re: [I2nsf] Fwd: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-iet… Fernando Pereñíguez García
- Re: [I2nsf] Fwd: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-iet… tom petch
- Re: [I2nsf] Fwd: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-iet… Susan Hares
- Re: [I2nsf] AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-ietf-i2n… Gabriel Lopez
- Re: [I2nsf] [AD] AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-iet… Rafa Marin-Lopez
- Re: [I2nsf] [AD] AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-iet… Rafa Marín López
- Re: [I2nsf] [AD] AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-iet… Roman Danyliw
- Re: [I2nsf] [AD] AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-iet… Gabriel Lopez
- Re: [I2nsf] [AD] AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-iet… Rafa Marin-Lopez
- Re: [I2nsf] [AD] AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-iet… Fernando Pereñíguez García
- Re: [I2nsf] AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-ietf-i2n… Rafa Marin-Lopez