Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-20

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

Hi Charlie,
Thanks for your in-depth review on our Consumer-Facing Interface Draft.

I will correct the typo (Page 8: interuption -> interruption) in the
revision.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul


On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 10:51 AM Charlie Kaufman <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Reviewer: Charlie Kaufman
> Review result: Has nits
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
> These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
> directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> This document specifies a syntax for specifying security policies that
> apply in a networked environment. It is intended that general policies
> would be fed into the system in this syntax and then some policy engine
> would determine which policies need to be enforced by which nodes in the
> system and appropriate subsets would be distributed. The syntax takes the
> form of a YANG data model.
>
> The review result I wanted to give was "Mostly Harmless". I am skeptical
> as to whether the collection of policies specifiable is flexible enough to
> be usable to manage a real network, but the syntax is easily extensible and
> this seems as good a place to start as any. If it encourages
> experimentation with management systems that distribute policies this way,
> that would be a good thing, and any deficiencies found could be fixed
> later. I could imagine other groups having very different visions as to how
> to manage this information, but I would not expect the presence of this
> document as an RFC would discourage them from experimenting with those
> visions.
>
> I'm not sufficiently familiar with YANG or with Network Functions
> Virtualization to have a useful opinion as to how good this design is.
>
> I noticed one nit, which suggests they might want to run the document
> through a spelling checker. The nit is not worth holding the document up if
> no one finds anything else.
>
> Nits:
>
> Page 8: interuption -> interruption
>
> --Charlie
>
>