[netmod] draft-wwx-netmod-event-yang-07

Jonathan <jonathan@hansfords.net> Wed, 08 July 2020 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan@hansfords.net>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 940D83A0F12 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 09:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oswCZl9t8lo4 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 09:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from azure.dogwood.relay.mailchannels.net (azure.dogwood.relay.mailchannels.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A7553A0F11 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 09:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dxszz3qpvg|x-authuser|jonathan@hansfords.net
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost []) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C064340971 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 16:21:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.myfast.site (100-96-9-37.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local []) (Authenticated sender: dxszz3qpvg) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BAD48340F44 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 16:21:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dxszz3qpvg|x-authuser|jonathan@hansfords.net
Received: from mail.myfast.site (mail.myfast.site []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by (trex/5.18.8); Wed, 08 Jul 2020 16:21:40 +0000
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dxszz3qpvg|x-authuser|jonathan@hansfords.net
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dxszz3qpvg
X-Shelf-Tart: 310a85f1584b51b7_1594225300586_1487272934
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1594225300586:2823039690
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1594225300586
Received: from ([]:58512 helo=[]) by mail.myfast.site with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <jonathan@hansfords.net>) id 1jtCpE-0002S0-Vm for netmod@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2020 17:21:37 +0100
From: Jonathan <jonathan@hansfords.net>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 16:21:36 +0000
Message-Id: <em8ebe40f6-1930-4bec-8e7b-def827aa3fef@vanguard>
Reply-To: Jonathan <jonathan@hansfords.net>
User-Agent: eM_Client/7.2.37929.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------=_MBDAC41328-96EC-42B6-A6C2-45A01E32CDE7"
X-AuthUser: jonathan@hansfords.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/4Bup2gBU1ZwZcZotatK5exFcLyU>
Subject: [netmod] draft-wwx-netmod-event-yang-07
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 16:30:01 -0000


I've had my first look at this draft and have a few initial comments on 
section 2.1 Terminology:
It would be helpful to identify which definitions come from which RFCIt 
would be worth including definitions from RFC3198 "Terminology for 
Policy-Based Management" as well. For example:In Event, "rule" could be 
"policy rule"Condition could be "policy condition"Action could be 
"policy action"Neither "Implicit policy variable" nor "Explicit policy 
variable" are defined in RFC3460, though it does introduce (but not 
formally define) the following terms. Be good to properly align with the 
terms in the RFC:“Implicit PolicyVariable”, “Implicitly bound policy 
variable” and “Implicitly defined policy variable”“Explicitly bound 
policy variable” and “Explicitly defined policy variable”It would 
probably also be worth including definitions from RFC3198 for:"Policy 
Decision Point (PDP)" and "Policy Enforcement Point (PEP)" - is the 
intent for the server to be a PDP and PEP?"provisioned policy" - I 
presume you are looking at provisioned policies rather than "outsourced 
policies" (also defined in RFC3198)
I have other comments, but it would be useful to have a clearer set of 
definitions to work from.