Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working Group Last Call Review for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06

Hi Acee,
I have reflected all your comments in the revised I-D of NSF-Facing
Interface YANG Data Model:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-08

I attach the revision letter to explain how I reflected your comments on
each of your comments.

If you have questions, please let me know.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:03 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

> I have reviewed this document as part of the YANG doctors directorate's
>
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
> These
>
> comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects
> of the
>
> IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
> in AD reviews
>
> during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
> comments
>
> just like any other early review comments.
>
>
>
>
>
> Document: draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06
>
> Reviewer: Acee Lindem
>
> Review Date: June 22, 2019
>
> Review Type: Working Group Last Call
>
> Intended Status: Standards Track
>
> Summary: Needs to go back to Working Group for rework and another WGLC
>
>
>
> Modules: "ietf-i2nsf-policy-rule-for-nsf@2019-06-12.yang"
>
>
>
> Tech Summary: The model defines different types of I2NSF security policy.
> Each
>
>                              is comprised of an event, a condition, and an
> action. There is
>
>                              significant overlap with other IETF models.
> Within I2NSF, there
>
>                              is repetition of definitions which needs to
> go into a common
>
>                              I2NSF types module.  Additionally, the data
> descriptions were
>
>                               were done quickly and never reviewed or
> edited. I believe
>
>                              it needs to go back to the working group for
> another revision and
>
>                              working group last call.
>
> .
>
>
>
> Major Comments:
>
>
>
>  1. Why don't you leverage the definitions in RFC 8519 for packet matching?
>
>     We don't need all this defined again.
>
>
>
>  2. Date and time are defined in RFC 6991. Why don't those suffice?
>
>
>
>  3. Refer to the intervals as "time-intervals" rather than "time-zones".
>
>     The term "time-zone" has a completely different connotation.
>
>
>
>  4. What the "acl-number"? Also, ACLs are named (RFC 8519). Also, why
>
>     define all the packet matching and then reference an ACL.
>
>
>
>  5. The descriptions are very awkwardly worded and in many cases simply
>
>     repeat the data node or identify description without hyphens. I
>
>     started trying to fix this but it was too much. I'll pass for on
>
>     for some examples. There are enough co-authors and contributors that
>
>     one would expect much better.
>
>
>
>  6. There is overlap of definitions with the I2NSF capabilities draft.
>
>     The common types and identities should be factored into a common
>
>     I2NSF types module.
>
>
>
>  7. The "Security Considerations" in section 8 do not conform to the
>
>     recommended template in
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-
>
>     guidelines>
>
>
>
>
>
> Minor Comments:
>
>
>
>  1. Section 3.1 should reference RFC8340 rather than attempting to
>
>     include tree diagram formatting semantics.
>
>
>
>  2. "iiprfn" is a poor choice for default model prefix - I suggest
>
>     "nsfintf". It is only one character longer and actually is expands
>
>      to something meaningful.
>
>
>
>  3. RFC 2460 is obsoleted by RFC 8200.
>
>
>
>  4. RFC 791 is the wrong reference for IPv4 TOS. It should be RFC 1394.
>
>
>
>  5. What is the IGRP protocol? I'm familiar with EIGRP but not IGRP.
>
>
>
>  6. What is the skip protocol? Is this about skipping the check? If so,
>
>     why is it needed.
>
>
>
>  7. Reference for IPv6 ICMP should be RFC 2463.
>
>
>
>  8. Why do you include Photuris definitions? Nobody uses this.
>
>
>
>  9. Note that all the keys for all 'config true' lists must be
>
>     unique so your specification in the description as well as
>
>     'mandatory true' are redundant for the 'rules' list. This
>
>     mistake is in other lists as well.
>
>
>
> 10. What is 'during' time?
>
>
>
> 11. What is a "security-grp"? Is this a security-group?
>
>
>
> 12. The module prologue doesn't match the example in Appendix B of
>
>     RFC 8407.
>
>
>
> 13. There needs to be a good definition of absolute and periodic
>
>        time in the descriptions.
>
>
>
> 14. The References do not include all the RFCs referenced by YANG
>
>     model reference statements.
>
>
>
> Nits: Will send diff to authors and i2nsf chairs as example of review that
> should be done on YANG documents prior to sending to YANG doctors.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>

-- 
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>

Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working Group Last Call Review for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06

Attachment: Revision-Letter-for-I2NSF-NSF-Facing-Interface-YANG-Data-Model-20191104.pdf